Re: Claim by 'Stevo' - "CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007"

by lj 25.06.15 23:26

Richard D. Hall wrote:Is there some sort of fanfare if the thread reaches 100 pages?

We all get a pin

ETA: I made the 100 without aiming for it.

OK back on topic

by Nuala 25.06.15 23:42

@ Whodunnit

Which literally makes no sense. It amounts to panicked gibberish spouted by Mr. Butler after he was told in so many words "This is a high profile case, very sensitive, be careful how you reply". You just can't do that.

Yes you can, and he did. Fact is, the first "the date is correct response" from Wayback was a standard reply, sent to anyone enquiring. It was sent without investigating the matter in question in any depth as is standard with many organisations.

When questioned further, and the importance of the date being made clear, Wayback then investigated further and confirmed, in writing, that the 30th April 2007 date was incorrect.

In my opinion a judge or jury would have no trouble believing that mccann.html existed on April 30.

In my opinion, anyone believing anything on the Internet was 100% accurate is extremely naive, and I would hope both judge and jury would weigh up all evidence if it was me in the dock.

Thing is this, I imagine that all those taking part in this debate, like me, want to get to the truth of what happened to Maddie McCann. That's why we're here. We don't believe she was abducted, we believe that was a sham, but we're not going to find out what happened in PdL in May 2007 from Wayback.

It's given us something to debate and chew over, but at the end of the day it's provided no proof of anything, none at all, and it never will. That's the reality.

by whodunnit 25.06.15 23:51

It's exactly like someone claiming a picture I took April, with an April date stamp, was actually taken in July, with no corresponding exif data whatsoever to back up the claim.

by HKP 25.06.15 23:55

@nuala "It's given us something to debate and chew over, but at the end of the day it's provided no proof of anything, none at all, and it never will. That's the reality."

I think it's more what you want us to believe rather than reality

by Nuala 26.06.15 0:07

@ HKP

I think it's more what you want us to believe rather than reality

No, it's the reality, and you don't want to accept that reality.

I don't know why you would think I have any agenda as regards what I want people to believe.

People will believe whatever they want to believe, I know that, and I accept that. And I know that whatever my opinions about this issue others will have their opinions too, and that's fine and as it should be, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

But they will only be opinions, there will never be any definitive answer to this.

The mccann.html page on Wayback has proved nothing, hence we're at 100 pages on this thread, and we can go on for another 100 pages, and it will still have proved nothing.

Sorry, that's the reality, whether you want to accept it or not.

by siobhan3445 26.06.15 0:08

Skyrocket1

that 2007 page is archived through archive.org (wbm). i ran the 2007 page through wbm, then ran that through archive.is and it[url=#9803386] linked[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/url] back to the original page. I was archiving the archive!
archive.is didn't crawl that in 2007, they got their info for that page from wbm.

check the link where it says redirected from

by surfmonkey 26.06.15 0:29

Glitch it may be - but it puts CEOP under scrutiny - the NCA should order an enquiry to get the truth - and there has to be some audit trail to get to the truth of what caused the error because eventually historiography will rely more and more on archived electronic evidence which can be trusted to be accurately dated. In this case it involves a question mark over the role of CEOP in Madeleine McCann's disappearance. Surely this requires a full answer to the question of the 30 April 2007 dating on archived CEOP records - if this was a paper-based piece of evidence it would have to be thoroughly scrutinised by the police because of its potential implications.

by Sam S 26.06.15 7:30

Nuala wrote:@ Whodunnit

Which literally makes no sense. It amounts to panicked gibberish spouted by Mr. Butler after he was told in so many words "This is a high profile case, very sensitive, be careful how you reply". You just can't do that.

Yes you can, and he did. Fact is, the first "the date is correct response" from Wayback was a standard reply, sent to anyone enquiring. It was sent without investigating the matter in question in any depth as is standard with many organisations.

When questioned further, and the importance of the date being made clear, Wayback then investigated further and confirmed, in writing, that the 30th April 2007 date was incorrect.

In my opinion a judge or jury would have no trouble believing that mccann.html existed on April 30.

In my opinion, anyone believing anything on the Internet was 100% accurate is extremely naive, and I would hope both judge and jury would weigh up all evidence if it was me in the dock.

Thing is this, I imagine that all those taking part in this debate, like me, want to get to the truth of what happened to Maddie McCann. That's why we're here. We don't believe she was abducted, we believe that was a sham, but we're not going to find out what happened in PdL in May 2007 from Wayback.

It's given us something to debate and chew over, but at the end of the day it's provided no proof of anything, none at all, and it never will. That's the reality.

"weigh up all evidence"? If the police were allowed to do their job properly and "weighed up all evidence" Gerry and Kate would already be in prison. In this case they have done everything possible to stop people from getting to the real evidence and have created smoke screens and confusion at every possible turn, but you already know that and it is my opinion, after reading your posts on this one and only thread that you do indeed have an agenda. You don't believe she was abducted..what do you believe happened to this undefended, neglected child?

by Guest 26.06.15 7:36

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
whodunnit wrote:It seems we are being told in no uncertain terms that an error is a 'fact' and that there is 'no argument'.

I'd like to know if poster BlueBag is a mod and if he has the authority to shut down this thread. Because if not, his aggressive attitude + his post count will surely have the effect shutting it down if mods and admins do not clarify the issue soon. I am only a guest here and will by all means go elsewhere to have this conversation but as the largest and most active Madeleine forum I think it matters a great deal whether CMOMM will allow this debate to continue or not.
BlueBag is not a mod and does not have the authority to shut down this thread.

The thread is staying put until we know for sure, one way or another, what the score is with WBM.

I asked Steve Marsden yesterday to come and comment on this thread and he said he would.

Haven't seen him here yet, though.

Daer GGC,

BlueBag has not tried to shut down this thread.

BlueBag just presented a fact which makes all other arguments spurious.

Just like some of the stupid photo threads which did none of us any favours.

Hey... so people don't like what I'm saying... well argue the facts and don't attack me.

Thanks.

by HKP 26.06.15 7:40

@nuala. The reality (at the moment) is that there is an index with a time stamp of 30/04 which includes McCann.html. Any other reality has not been fully established yet.

by Guest 26.06.15 7:43

SixMillionQuid wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:So Wayback did not archive the result of webcrawl of the CEOP website on 30 April 2007 with mccann.html as the filename?

If all mccann related web pages were created after this date then I'm struggling to understand how the Wayback machine 'invented' the 30 April 2007 archive date.

No takers then?

Why would the Wayback machine backdate a webcrawl back to the 30 April 2007?

Er.. bad application programming.. bad program temporary fix... bad system date configuration.... net work problem... database problem...

Could be any number of reasons that people who work in software support will tell you, some are notoriously hard to track down.

The fact is the WBM was in error right at the start before anyone contacted them.

I keep saying it but it's the truth, it's there on the Steve Marsden facebook page.

An explanation of why it happened would be nice, it doesn't change the fact.

by Guest 26.06.15 7:44

HKP wrote:@nuala. The reality (at the moment) is that there is an index with a time stamp of 30/04 which includes McCann.html. Any other reality has not been fully established yet.

But it has.

How can anyone possibly deny that WBM was in error on the 17th June?

Unless you think Steve Marsden is also "in on it"?

by HKP 26.06.15 7:47

@Bluebag:-"BlueBag just presented a fact which makes all other arguments spurious."
Bluebag always forgets to add 'in his opinion' and presents his theory as fact, and that's a fact

by Guest 26.06.15 7:50

Nuala wrote:@ Cloak'nDagger

The time has to be constant .It is a robot. It cannot crawl [grab] material relating to the future.

No, but it can grab material, store it, then add the wrong date when it's retrieved.

Or assign a wrong date when it archives it.

And that MUST have happened for the October page at least and almost certainly the other pages as well because they are associated with the same time stamp.

by Guest 26.06.15 7:51

HKP wrote:@Bluebag:-"BlueBag just presented a fact which makes all other arguments spurious."
Bluebag always forgets to add 'in his opinion' and presents his theory as fact, and that's a fact

This is not an opinion it's a fact.

The fact is there to see.

Do you deny the fact that the WBM was in error on 17th June 2015?

by Guest 26.06.15 7:54

Nuala wrote:Software is only as good as those that program it, so there will always be times when it doesn't work properly. It's not some infallible thing that is never wrong.

As we all know

We certainly do.

by Guest 26.06.15 7:58

HKP wrote:@nuala. Authenticating the page means it was the exact content at the stated date otherwise what is there to authenticate?

This is probably the fifth time I posted this and it just goes right over people's heads.

Some archived web pages are self authenticating in terms of dates regardless of the time stamp assigned by WBM - because of their content - just like the October CEOP page.

In fact a page may be archived by WBM on a certain date but the date in the content of the page may be different (ie. an earlier dated forum posting or blog) and THAT could be the key piece of evidence in the court case not the WBM date.

by HKP 26.06.15 8:05

@Bluebag. Do us all a favour and bring Stevo's definitive evidence across here.

by Guest 26.06.15 8:10

HKP wrote:@Bluebag. Do us all a favour and bring Stevo's definitive evidence across here.

I did.. at least 3 times.

by HKP 26.06.15 8:11

@Bluebag:- the authentication process from archive.com is them providing a print out of the page saying that it is a true copy of what they have. The confirmation of a true date is then up to whoever asked for the authentication certificate. It's in their legal FAQs

by HKP 26.06.15 8:15

@Bluebag; I'll admit to being lost here, as far as I can see you've provided the ceop page with the October date on it. Have I missed something?

by Guest 26.06.15 8:16

BlueBag wrote:The fact.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

WBM is wrong.

For the benefit of those not following the thread properly.

by Skyrocket1 26.06.15 8:18

Skyrocket1 Yesterday at 10:37 pm

I have found the 27 April 2007 ceop.gov.uk page archived on the website 'archive.is'. If you open it up for some reason it states 'redirected' from the 30 April 2007 date stamp - no idea why it would link back to this (I didn't input it at any stage).

--------------------

siobhan3443 Yesterday at 10:51 pm
Skyrocket1

it gives the 13/may date because it was searched and archived by archive.is after waybackmachine changed it. i know because i submitted it to be archived the other day - you can submit links to be archived. there was nothing archived on that site until i ran the page, waybackmachine had change the link before i ran it

--------------------

Skyrocket1

Thanks Siobhan - but yours isn't the record I was talking about. There was one on there prior to yours which is dated the 27 April 2007. This is the one with the 803 link and I think it was already on there before all this blew up.

------------------

Post siobhan3445 Today at 12:08 am
Skyrocket1

that 2007 page is archived through archive.org (wbm). i ran the 2007 page through wbm, then ran that through archive.is and it[url=#9803386] linked[/url] back to the original page. I was archiving the archive!
archive.is didn't crawl that in 2007, they got their info for that page from wbm.

check the link where it says redirected from

-------------------

Siobhan - I think we're talking at cross purposes. I know the files on archive.is originated from archive.org. The file on archive.is, that I was discussing, is the 27 April home page file. There is now a 13 May file also, which you say that you uploaded, but this is the appeal page not the home page. The 27 April page has no reference to 13 May on it and I actually haven't brought the 13 May up at all! The 27 May home page (and 'your' 13 May appeal page) does refer to the 20070430115803 date stamp as - 'redirected from', and I was just wondering if anyone knew why. I don't recognise the url you give - url=#9803386. I do screenshot everything.

by **Jill Havern** 26.06.15 8:25

BlueBag wrote:
BlueBag wrote:The fact.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

WBM is wrong.
For the benefit of those not following the thread properly.

I've put this screenshot on a new topic so perhaps everyone can now go to that thread to continue. This thread will automatically lock very soon anyway now it's gone past 100 pages.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Latest topics