Re: Steve Marsden's WBM screenshot: The CEOP Home page for April 30, 2007 also refers to Missing Madeleine.

by XXXXXXXX 27.06.15 19:55

I really don't understand why people keep passing opinions when Tony has written to WBM and is waiting for a reply?

What does speculation do when Tony will make it all clear?

by XXXXXXXX 27.06.15 19:58

" jeanmonroe Today at 4:11 pm
With regards to PM

I'd love OG to 'take him in' to 'assist them' with their 'inquiries'!"

I also agree - I would love to see them question PM.

by Dee Coy 27.06.15 19:59

Once again, thank you Richard Henshaw.

Thought as much - the obvious is usually correct - so why all the desperate muddying using technical bafflement from some, I wonder?

Just for argument's sake and to put a nagging doubt in my own mind to rest - would it be possible for CEOP to have updated an old existing page with a different URL that existed on the 30 April to use as the McCann page after 3 May? Or would the crawler have definitely captured the page by following the URL which contained the McCann reference actually on 30 April?

I hope you understand what I mean.

by Syn 27.06.15 19:59

whodunnit wrote:First, you keep referring to code contained on archive.is. How did this capture end up on archive.is and why should we rely on it's validity?

Second, the capture says 'you are here' April 30 but gives no context as to which page it is referring to.

Third, which part of dynamic content don't you understand? Clearly one of the links on that page updated to the nearest available news update and of course this is reflected in the coding!!;

AGAIN, from the FAQ:

How did I end up on the live version of a site? or I clicked on X date, but now I am on Y date, how is that possible?
Not every date for every site archived is 100% complete. When you are surfing an incomplete archived site the Wayback Machine will grab the closest available date to the one you are in for the links that are missing. In the event that we do not have the link archived at all, the Wayback Machine will look for the link on the live web and grab it if available. Pay attention to the date code embedded in the archived url. This is the list of numbers in the middle; it translates as yyyymmddhhmmss. For example in this url http:[link removed] the date the site was crawled was Feb 29, 2000 at 12:33 and 40 second

Can't address all your post right now as about to have dinner but just before I go, where are the #includes in the source code? Granted they may be server side but I doubt it, the CEOP pages are rather basic.

Re the para from the FAQ If there was no error as you claim and the 30/04/2007 archive was for real, why were the news items not show from say June 6th for example?

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

or from June 25 07 https://web.archive.org/web/20070625135157/http://www.ceop.gov.uk/

After all that is closer in date to 20/04/07 than October 24th is it not?

Based on WB's info on it's own FAQ your argument is flawed.

Anyways catch you later maybe :)

by whodunnit 27.06.15 19:59

Well, syn?

Naturally the page existed and updated in November of 2007 but there is literally no evidence that WAYBACK MACHINE captured/took a picture of it at that time. Please refer to the code embedded in the October 12 capture. The next/previous code refers to 'next' in Feb. 2008. For whatever reason WBM stopped crawling the site for a period of months. I noticed this with my own former deleted blog. It's not that strange.

by cloak'ndagger 27.06.15 20:08

Richard Henshaw wrote:Syn - I've been creating these crawlers for far too many years. Please look at the simple and logical outcome - Fact - the page exsisted on the 30/04/2007. Stop this madness!

Syn you have an agenda .Do you want me to spell out who you are connected to ? You have been given instructions to debunk Steve's find at all costs ..

Care to spill the beans ?

by XXXXXXXX 27.06.15 20:10

Where is steve(o)?

Admin said he was going to post here.

by cloak'ndagger 27.06.15 20:19

XXXXXXXX wrote:Where is steve(o)?

Admin said he was going to post here.

if Steve does find the time to post it will be to show that some posters have an agenda and that justice for Madeleine is not one of them. .

by whodunnit 27.06.15 20:19

@Syn==I don't know what you're talking about, frankly. You're discussing codes from a site other than the site under discussion. Honestly, what is the point of debating someone who reacts like quicksilver every time you try to pin them down? There is none.

by Richard Henshaw 27.06.15 20:21

It’s an anomaly. The page certainly existed on the 30/4/2007. Why? I dare not think! I’m just reading about the case and seriously can’t believe what I’m seeing. Not sure if this was a good case to research as there are so many theories ...... so very interesting!

by Syn 27.06.15 20:24

whodunnit wrote:Seriously?

Please link to this 'other company' so we can see this 'capture' and it's code for ourselves.

From page 9 of this thread. You can find the info re the 21 Nov 07 capture in here. NOTE Their data source is Wayback Machine

Wayback are working on it and hopefully they will provide an explanation as to why this happened once it has been resolved. It has been clearly demonstrated that WB had issues for whatever reason with solid evidence all further up in this thread and on the original.

Namely,

The erroneous October 07 news on an April 07 archive

A non McCann related press release dated and uploaded on 18th June 2007 which was archived on
20th June 2007 in an April 2007 archive.

Wayback do not archive ophan pages, the mccann.html had links to it from BBC website on 10th May as well as links from the index.asp

There wasn't just one photo on the erroneous 30 April archive, there were two, WB just didn't render it for some reason. The words 'photo of Madeleine McCann' on the screenshot are the alt tag for an existing but non rendered image

The flags for the PDF links do not appear on any version of the mccann.html archive as WB could
not handle them being in a paragraph format so rendered the white background. However the Gov National Archive page rendered them correctly in Oct 07 and there is no reason to think that it wouldn't have done had it archived previous versions of mccann.html
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

6. You also said that there were no captures after October 12th. Well there were....

Here is a screenshot of a CEOP homepage on 21st November 2007 which was generated by a website called Screenshots.com. Using source code available on bitbucket and he script depends on python 2.5+, pyqt and a webscraping package. Now here comes the kicker....

The source data used is Wayback Machine
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

Where is it in WBM? It wasn't there before WB started working the issues and it's not there now but it clearly was at some point or the website referenced above that produced the image would not have had the data from Wayback Machine to capture the image of the 21 November 2007 archive.

So again we have yet more evidence that WB screwed something up.

Like I said last evening, once WB have finished fixing the issue, this page will look very different https://web.archive.org/web/20070427113509*/http://www.ceop.gov.uk/ as will the one for mccann.html

And now I am definitely going for my dinner :)

by Syn 27.06.15 20:27

cloak'ndagger wrote:
Richard Henshaw wrote:Syn - I've been creating these crawlers for far too many years. Please look at the simple and logical outcome - Fact - the page exsisted on the 30/04/2007. Stop this madness!

Syn you have an agenda .Do you want me to spell out who you are connected to ? You have been given instructions to debunk Steve's find at all costs ..

Care to spill the beans ?

What on earth are you on about? Absolute piffle. The only McCann case related person I am connected to is Martin Grime as he is my exes brother lol.

Can't wait to hear who you think I am connected to

by HKP 27.06.15 20:28

Real cloakn'dagger stuff. Not been able to keep up much today but same old same old. Nobody knows who, what,when or why but there must have been some sort of screw up. Alternatively (in the real world) there was a mccann. html page crawled and captured on 30/04. From there (and in accordance with their FAQs) at retrieval it reconstructed the mccann. html page and there were no updates (to any dynamic links) whereas the ceop homepage was 'updated' as WBM found updated contents.

by Phyllis Tyne 27.06.15 20:31

Syn wrote:There wasn't just one photo on the erroneous 30 April archive, there were two, WB just didn't render it for some reason. The words 'photo of Madeleine McCann' on the screenshot are the alt tag for an existing but non rendered image

I'm no expert in these things but even I know this is disingenuous at best. One of the many reasons why the picture might not render could indeed be that the file didn't exist.

by Guest 27.06.15 20:51

cloak'ndagger wrote:
XXXXXXXX wrote:Where is steve(o)?

Admin said he was going to post here.

if Steve does find the time to post it will be to show that some posters have an agenda and that justice for Madeleine is not one of them. .

I hope if he does post it will be to clarify the topic under discussion.

However, I've a feeling we won't be seeing him here.

Who is Steve M, BTW?

by siobhan3443 27.06.15 21:08

this page is doing the rounds. its a distraction. change the date in the url to any date and the page shows this is date as the date screenshot taken. try it yourself if you don't believe me. it's not from april 30. www . screenshots. com/ ceop. gov. uk/2007-04-30. you can change it to say any date, but only real records appear in the search.

by plebgate 27.06.15 21:09

Just wanted to say that the ? about PeterM on why he didn't support Pat Brown, I did not understand.   What has that got to do with this thread and why would anybody think that he needs to support someone who is quite capable and well qualified to defend herself.

I do hope we are not going to see PM coming under suspicion for goodness knows what.   It has been my experience that men do not readily jump in to defend someone as some females would and I must admit that sometimes I have been unable to understand why some of the females have been defended given some of the posts they have made in the past attacking Tony and others here.

I have noticed (I agree here with aquila) that some guests seem to be delighing in being able to comment and cast doubt on certain members here.

As far as I am concerned I have seen nothing in any of Blue Bag's posts since he has been a member here which would lead me to think that he is not genuine.    Of course I could be wrong, but we shall have to wait and see but for now I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

by Richard Henshaw 27.06.15 21:09

Having read Syn's verbal dribble, I have decided to give up on this forum. For those of you interested enough - I am 100% sure that the page was createdon the 30/04/2007. I was asked for my opinion from a student - I've looked at it and presented my findings. WB is 100% correct! Amen - GCHQ,MI5 ...??? I'm ot of here - too hot to handle :-(

by cloak'ndagger 27.06.15 21:12

Ladyinred wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:
XXXXXXXX wrote:Where is steve(o)?

Admin said he was going to post here.

if Steve does find the time to post it will be to show that some posters have an agenda and that justice for Madeleine is not one of them. .
I hope if he does post it will be to clarify the topic under discussion.

However, I've a feeling we won't be seeing him here.

Who is Steve M, BTW?

Steve Marsden posts here [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I see no reason why he wouldn't post here when he has the time. .

by Dee Coy 27.06.15 21:22

@Richard Henshaw

I'm sorry about that. There are other places that discuss this case with people who have also researched it from the beginning, as have many of the good people here. As a relative Newbie to the case, I have the greatest respect for them, both here and there.

There is a poster called Resistor over on this site who has written very informatively on the subject - she believes as you do that the WBM captured the McCann page accurately on 30 April. Please take the time to read her thoughts. yes

maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t800-ceop-show-maddie-is-missing-on-30th-april-2007

Unable to post the link, but here is the address above.

by Guest 27.06.15 21:26

cloak'ndagger wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:
XXXXXXXX wrote:Where is steve(o)?

Admin said he was going to post here.

if Steve does find the time to post it will be to show that some posters have an agenda and that justice for Madeleine is not one of them. .
I hope if he does post it will be to clarify the topic under discussion.

However, I've a feeling we won't be seeing him here.

Who is Steve M, BTW?
Steve Marsden posts here [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I see no reason why he wouldn't post here when he has the time. .

Is he so busy that he couldn't spare ten minutes to post here, considering the level of interest which he initiated.

Ta for link, but I don't do FB.

by Skyrocket1 27.06.15 21:29

Richard Henshaw Today at 8:21 pm
It’s an anomaly. The page certainly existed on the 30/4/2007. Why? I dare not think! I’m just reading about the case and seriously can’t believe what I’m seeing. Not sure if this was a good case to research as there are so many theories ...... so very interesting!

Richard, I started about 2 months ago (seems we have eight years of catching up to do) - I'm not sure whether you shouldn't leg it now! It's dangerously addictive.

Thanks for your input on this (I concur with you) - I'm hoping archive.org will release a genuine explantion soon to settle the issue because this is what it is doing to my head tease

. It's almost on a par with contemplating what existed before the 'big bang'!

by Guest 27.06.15 21:42

Richard Henshaw wrote:I've read through this very interesting thread. BB and Syn offer logical but totally incorrect facts. In order for the web crawler to archive web pages a link must already exist – in this case it obviously did!

No it didn't.

Please refer to the first post in this thread.

End of.

Computer uses wrong date error.

I wish I had a pound.....

by HelenMeg 27.06.15 21:43

Richard Henshaw wrote:I posted last night after researching the WB machine and archiving process. I had little interest or knowledge of this case but was asked to give my opinion.
As an experienced lecturer in Comp Sci and data mining I can state that there is no error on the 30/04/2007 page. Discussion on the home page is another matter completely.
Sadly the questions asked by the 2nd enquiry triggered a panic reaction and it seems that WB is now desperately attempting to alter pointers to the later date.
I believe that this would stand as evidence of premeditation.

BB with respect your explanations are weak to say the very least.

I have now become very interested in the case and I’m doing my best to read historical facts. I’m not sure that this is a positive result for me!

Richard Henshaw - a breathe of fresh air! Great that you've become interested in this case - and hope you stay around to discuss further. You have to bear in mind that there are many posters who pretend to wish for the truth to emerge but actually do their best to prevent it. That is what makes it interesting though.

by Guest 27.06.15 21:44

jack dexter wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
jack dexter wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
whodunnit wrote:The only people who are looking like fools here are the ones who keep insisting WMB made several errors without offering any coherent explanations much less any relevant evidence to back up their claims.
We don't have to explain the error (...there be dragons...).

We just need to point out the absolute 100% certainty that there was an error.

Do I need to refer you to the first post in this thread yet again?
If it was my child missing and there may be evidence of a possible pre planned abduction no way would i accept an explaination of. "there was an error but we dont have to prove it".
Seriously if it was your child what would you be doing now?
We don't have to prove there was an error because it's already proven.

Please refer to the first post in this thread.
It's only your opinion looking at the data that is currently available to you. I can think of hundreds of things in the past that once were facts that have since been proven wrong.

It's a fact.

The WBM was wrong on 17th June 2015.

Please refer to the first post in this thread.

Or ask Steve Marsden.

Log in for more topics