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

@ jeanmonroe  -  "WHY WOULD CEOP 'USE' AN 'OUT OF DATE' PHOTO ON THEIR WEBSITE?"

Probably the same reason that the McCanns used an out of date photograph to be officially published before the world..

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

I'm dipping out the debate on this forum, keep up the good work there are a good few on either side of the debate who have been really interesting to either concurr or 'do battle with'. Hopefully we'll get to the bottom of this matter.


HKP/Hongkong Phooey

Hello--thanks for the invite admins. I successfully registered here some months ago but never received an activation e-mail. If a mod would like to go through old registrations, iirc I registered as 'whodunit' with one n. If not let me know and I'll re-register.  

In my opinion, having looked at the index of my own archived blog the many April 30 occurrences reflect the many elements of the page, some of which updated many times.

To me the index isn't the most telling part--it's the sequential coding. Even today you can go to the captured pages [the redirects] directly before and after the 30th of both the homepage and mccann.html and find all of these pages pointing to April 30 as the page captured next and previous.
In other words, the codes for the pages before and after show April 30 standing in it's proper place in line like a good little page.

Its like someone is trying to convince you that a pic on the memory card in your camera was actually taken in October but incredibly, it jumped back in time 6 months and somehow inserted itself into a series of pics you know you took in April. It has a time and date stamp and everything and upon closer examination the exif data reveals you are totally right the image was captured in April. Yet the person keeps insisting, without any convincing data to offer, other than a stray poster depicting a tiny  jack-o-lantern in the background of the image, that you are wrong and it really was captured in October!

@hpk how did you enter the mccann html in the wbd directory source file


eagerly awaiting explanation

@ Whodunnit

Its like someone is trying to convince you that a pic on the memory card in your camera was actually taken in October but incredibly, it jumped back in time 6 months and somehow inserted itself into a series of pics you know you took in April. It has a time and date stamp and everything and upon closer examination the exif data reveals you are totally right the image was captured in April. Yet the person keeps insisting, without any convincing data to offer, other than a stray poster depicting a tiny  jack-o-lantern in the background of the image, that you are wrong and it really was captured in October!
 
Then explain this . . . . .

This is only a snapshot because there are masses of these:

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

News Item Article dated 3rd May 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 9th May 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 14th May 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 1st June 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 7th June 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 11th June 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 13th June 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 15th June 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 18th June 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 20th June 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 25th June 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 19th July 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 10th August 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 31st August 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 8th October 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 5th November 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 16th November 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 6th December 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

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

News Item Article dated 12th February 2008 given a date of 30th Apr 2007 (span 30th Apr 2007)

Masses of articles that didn't exist on 30 Apr 2007 but given a date of 30 Apr 2007

www   .  ceop  . gov . uk/html / mccannhongkongphooey jun 29, 2015
@hkp

@siobhan3443  "how did you enter the mccann html in the wbd directory source file


eagerly awaiting explanation"

It's really not a mystery, it's been explained a couple of times. Just put an asterisk* after the url and hit 'browse history'. This will pull up the index.

@siobhan3443

Ah, sorry. I assume that's the name he gave the .pdf?

and then archived the pdf in wbm as http : // www . ceop . gov . uk/html/mccannhongkongphooey | 13:39:33 jun 29, 2015








no, they were asking 4 hours ago how to upload a pdf

@siobhan3443--I have no idea, you'll have to ask him. I doubt it's anything sinister. I'm sure there is a logical explanation.

Dr. Roberts has answered the question of the reoccurring dates in the comment section of his Monday Monday piece. I'm waiting for permission to copy. It answers the conundrum perfectly, in my opinion. Hint: It's right from the FAQ but in easy to understand language.

I can't wait! I'm sure he won't mind:
~~~~


A major cause of ideological schism in this debate is, I believe, peoples' misunderstanding of what it means to save a 'page'.

The moment the word is mentioned most will instinctively think of a rectangular area occupied by text and pictures, i.e. a page as typically viewed. What is perhaps not properly understood by all is that, as far as the WBM is concerned, a page is no more than a piece of code returned by the crawler in respect of a unique URL it has just encountered.

In all probability said 'page' will be represented by (and henceforward identified with) a surprisingly modest alpha-numeric sequence. Once that is in place then the 'page' can be considered as having been archived on whatever date it is that that specific transaction involving the crawler occurred.

The rest of the details (again nothing but data or pointers to data) are streamed in as the on-line traffic permits. (I know electricity and gas are NOT delivered in this way, but just imagine a row of houses, each subscribing to a different supplier and waiting for THEIR particular units of fuel to appear within the constant stream of randomly distributed clumps sent down the pipe by British Gas, SSE, E.ON, etc.).

Later, when a 'page' is required in respect of a given date, the initiating data FOR THAT DATE are first recovered, followed by all of the other relevant bits and pieces. Should it not be possible to re-construct the original from entirely contemporaneous elements, for whatever reason, the WBM searches back and forth until it finds a suitable replacement, patches it in, and considers it dated as per the page requested.

I wish I'd thought of it earlier, but a perfect descriptive analogy is that of the London Stock Exchange of the early 70s (a decade and more before the advent of desk-top computers). Transactions were a genuine paper chase back then.

A Broker might strike a bargain on behalf of a client, but then have to wait days (sometimes weeks) before sufficient stock transfers were delivered to meet it. However long it took to construct the total number of shares required for re-registration on the client's behalf, the date of the purchase bargain was immutable, and it would be that aspect one would use to locate any discussion of the process, not the intermittent arrival of transfers from elsewhere (unless of course the discussion concerned those transfers explicitly).

Whatever else one might say about the WBM, the dating of its pages (as understood by IT and NOT as seen by the viewer) is, ipso facto, the most robust of its procedures. Where we have a page whose principal compositional element is a banner incorporating simple text (not the convoluted graphical or other contents of some remote file called to cough up its contents) - simple text that would be quickly written, being hard-wired within the source code for the page in question, then we may be confident that those 'early bird' aspects of the complete data set were indeed contemporaneous captures.

And if said banner should read 'Madeleine McCann'?

Well it does. So we have a page ('McCann.html) archived on 30 April 2007 which, when replayed, reads Madeleine McCann, without invoking any futuristic data capture whatsoever - this coupled with a pair of images that were also reportedly archived on that same date, albeit as individual items in their own right.

Can we hope to get any nearer a 'Slam dunk!' than that, I ask?

Kind regards

Martin R.

1 July 2015 at 01:19

HKP wrote:@Plebgate. Any opinion on the nearly 9000 URLs in the Ceop index, the 3015 attributed to 30/04/07 or the 2495 that are actually logged as on that exact day (without being in a range). What about the way that Wayback recreates web pages on retrieval and actually looks forwards and backwards until it finds a reference to what its looking for. What about the Madeleine 01 & 02 jpg‘s that are the only captures with the URL construction which are not repeated, or the 138 that are repeated on average 20 times, does this tell us they were dropped in or a true capture. What do you think of skyrocket1‘s email to somebody who looks like they actually know what they are talking about...


[HKP - Some parts of your post deleted...Once again, please refrain from goading, you are a guest here, kindly remember that - Mod]

Oh dear looks as if actions speak louder than words yet again.  Leopards certainly do not change their spots.   I have never had to have a comment deleted unlike many others.   Civility costs nothing. 

I have to say that I am glad HKP is still a guest.   Was banned before for being antagonistic.   Leopards and all that.

whodunnit wrote:Hello--thanks for the invite admins. I successfully registered here some months ago but never received an activation e-mail. If a mod would like to go through old registrations, iirc I registered as 'whodunit' with one n. If not let me know and I'll re-register.  

I've activated your account.

@siobahn . I'm shocked, I have no idea Seahorse pointed this out to me on the MMM and I really have no explanation. On that date I followed the Dr Martin link then downloaded to a local drive and worked on an excel spreadsheet. At no point have I knowingly uploaded anything (that is the absolute truth). It's the use of my forum name as well I really think someone is up to mischief.

An astute observation from Dr Martin Roberts on how this thread was 'derailed / interrupted / deflected'.

Martin Roberts said...
@whodunnit 17.00

Good evening sir

Everything you say, and then some...

As a non-participant I probably ought not to comment on forum behaviour, but I couldn't help but notice, today especially, how there are two methods each guaranteed to quash debate:

1. Change the subject, whilst at the same time introducing a goodly number of new topics for discussion that have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the original issue. (That’ll keep the fox from the hen-house for a while if not forever).

2. Re-introduce the focal question (to which there can be only one answer). A silence of six hour’s duration will ensue (I know. I’ve just measured it: 12.19 – 18.20, 28.6.15)

I wonder whether Chris Butler still has his office job at Archive.org or whether he's been transferred to car park duty.

See Agnos (above) for a fair synopsis of their position (if you haven't done so already that is).

Best wishes

Martin R.
28 June 2015 at 18:29



I would recommend that everyone reads his post and more  importantly the comments that follow it. Well it has certainly helped me to understand more about the file and more about behaviour on this thread!!

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

Also - and sorry to slip this in here - but lets not forget the fund to support Amaral  - I actually forgot about it whilst following this thread on a daily basis - so will make another donation later today  although will have to be a small amount as my eleven year old with size nine feet needed a few pairs of new shoes 

HKP wrote:@siobahn . I'm shocked, I have no idea Seahorse pointed this out to me on the MMM and I really have no explanation. On that date I followed the Dr Martin link then downloaded to a local drive and worked on an excel spreadsheet. At no point have I knowingly uploaded anything (that is the absolute truth). It's the use of my forum name as well I really think someone is up to mischief.

Can anyone explain the above post?

hkp has been found in the wbm directory 


they left their name behind

the plot thickens

siobhan3443 wrote:hkp has been found in the wbm directory 


they left their name behind

the plot thickens

What plot?

@joss, it's a phrase an i refer to the wbm/mccann plot and what looks like attempts to add more mccann entries to the directory

Problem with subsets says Chris Butler....

.... that brings us right back to the beginning where I posted this on 17th June when this merry go round first started.

I have now underlined the relevant part

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

siobhan3443 wrote:@joss, it's a phrase an i refer to the wbm/mccann plot and what looks like attempts to add more mccann entries to the directory

Thankyou for clarifying.

siobhan3443 wrote:@joss, it's a phrase an i refer to the wbm/mccann plot and what looks like attempts to add more mccann entries to the directory

I did it to prove a point to HPK that relying on the WB Source Directory is futile.  He posted either here or on the other forum that he was convinced WB had now added [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 27 June 2015 and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 17 June 2007.  They hadn't. Someone had simply typed in that url themselves either deliberately or by mistake and added it to the WBM but of course as neither exist they just redirect to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Anything can be added as I demonstrated by adding hongkongphooey to the archive saved on 27th June for [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to create the one on 29th June 2015

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

I will also demonstrate later how there is very little correlation between what is seen in WB Source Directory and what we see on Wayback Calendar and so relying on either for the purposes of trying to work out what has happened re 3004200 is pointless really.