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

by whodunnit 27.06.15 1:52

"Ignore his opinion re the Wayback issue all you like, but he and a few others like me won't be taken in by conspiracy theories that have no weight and which make justice seekers for Madeleine look like fools."

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.

I think ya'll need to re-read Dr. Robert's piece. He is far from a non-techie. BlueBag erroneously quoted 'Himself' in his introduction to the piece. Is he an IT specialist? No, but you don't need to be one in order to understand these issues. Anyone can educate themselves to understand the basic issues of coding--everyone knows for instance that digital cameras store date codes in their exif data. This is no different. This insistence upon unspecified, rarefied qualifications before one is allowed to take part in a discussion is a classic gatekeepers tactic.

by whodunnit 27.06.15 2:54

@siobhan3443---Indeed. The June 28 calendar link @ the archives for bring madeleine home . com redirects to June 29, but the 28th was captured because the date is embedded in the next/previous capture dates. Looks like the page captured on the 28th was removed for whatever reason. The FAQ does state a site owner can request removal of pages.

by Guest 27.06.15 9:40

whodunnit wrote:There is no evidence a grab of the homepage was done on the 23rd of October. If you look at the calendar links for 2007---the 'blue bubbles'---not only are there are no links after the 12th of October but the sequential, 'prev/next' code embedded in the grab of the 12 makes it clear there are no more grabs of the homepage until Febuary 6, 2008.

False logic.

The same process that archived with an erroneous date will have updated the index with the same erroneous date.

That's why you won't get a blue circle for 23rd of October (or whatever date after).

by Guest 27.06.15 9:44

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?

by **PeterMac** 27.06.15 10:11

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?

No matter how often you repeat this will not make it so. For that we need evidence and explanation.
And demanding that we all agree or accept what you aver does not add to the enquiry

by sallypelt 27.06.15 10:16

This is snipped from Ch 18 of The Truth of the Lie, taken from the link below.

The second piece of information comes to us from further afield: Beirut, capital of The Lebanon. Imagine this: an Arab shiekh possessed a video of an orgy by other shiekhs on which Madeleine was allegedly recognisable. He would be prepared to hand over this recording to the British Ambassador in exchange for a sum of money to be sent to his lawyer. Once again, we are stupified.

– Can you believe it? A sheikh ready to denounce his mates for a few sous…Arab royalty is so strapped for cash?

– I don’t understand: haven’t all of our English colleagues who have been working with us already concluded that Madeleine may have died in the apartment?

– What more does Stuart need?

– I don’t know what he needs. In any case, it was him who told us he had arrested people in England for a lot less.

After the interrogations, I had the opportunity to ask an English colleague about the outcome of the story. Did that video exist? What was on it? He responded that it had come to him in February or March 2007, well before Madeleine’s disappearance…It would be interesting to know who, deliberately and with the sole object of scuppering the investigation, went and unearthed a video from before Madeleine’s disappearance, to make people believe she was still alive…

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

by willowthewisp 27.06.15 11:06

Hi Salty
I wonder if Mr Stuart Prior was ever reported to the IPCC of his conduct that has become apparent from the release of the PJ files, other than this we would be in the dark so to speak of the Police protection used in this case?

by Guest 27.06.15 11:09

PeterMac 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?

No matter how often you repeat this will not make it so. For that we need evidence and explanation.
And demanding that we all agree or accept what you aver does not add to the enquiry

No Peter we don't - we already have the evidence.

The WBM was in demonstrably in error for what could be a whole variety of reasons (a debuggers nightmare).

That is the pertinent fact, it doesn't matter what caused it... wrong is wrong.

by Guest 27.06.15 11:11

BlueBag wrote:

I also alongside all this I don't believe CEOP would have had a Find Madeleine poster made before 11:58:03 on April 30th 2007.

Madeleine was photographed by the pool in the afternoon of the day before.

For something to happened involving blood and cadaverine and then CEOP having a poster ready for 11:58:03 next day beggars belief.

Also the phone records do not support anything for those hours either.

The bigger picture just does not support the idea.

I will repost this snippet.

Because it's all part of if.

by jack dexter 27.06.15 11:14

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?

by Guest 27.06.15 11:15

Syn wrote:

I agree with Blacksmith.

'The fact is that the Wayback lunacy has done what neither abuse nor Carter-Ruck ever managed. Reading it made us lose the will to live, let alone to post. '

Yes.

Common sense appears to have gone out the window.

by sallypelt 27.06.15 11:16

willowthewisp wrote:Hi Salty
I wonder if Mr Stuart Prior was ever reported to the IPCC of his conduct that has become apparent from the release of the PJ files, other than this we would be in the dark so to speak of the Police protection used in this case?

Willowthewisp, I am reading the CHRIS website for the first time. The information on there is incredible, and even though the information is in the public domain........if you look for it, it's till dynamite and I would think twice before copying and pasting some of the information to this forum, but here's the link for those who are interested. The Jimmy Savile information is worth a read.

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

Opps, wrong link nails

by Guest 27.06.15 11:19

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.

by jack dexter 27.06.15 11:42

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.

by DDACL 27.06.15 11:54

When we have the likes of PeterMac and BS querying this, then it's time to stop and think.

by Dee Coy 27.06.15 11:57

It is screamingly obvious to me that, in addition to Jim Gamble, certain people on here are very worried indeed, in my opinion.

Why are you perpetuating this damage limitation, Blue Bag and Syn?

by Syn 27.06.15 12:20

whodunnit wrote:"Ignore his opinion re the Wayback issue all you like, but he and a few others like me won't be taken in by conspiracy theories that have no weight and which make justice seekers for Madeleine look like fools."

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.

I think ya'll need to re-read Dr. Robert's piece. He is far from a non-techie. BlueBag erroneously quoted 'Himself' in his introduction to the piece. Is he an IT specialist? No, but you don't need to be one in order to understand these issues. Anyone can educate themselves to understand the basic issues of coding--everyone knows for instance that digital cameras store date codes in their exif data. This is no different. This insistence upon unspecified, rarefied qualifications before one is allowed to take part in a discussion is a classic gatekeepers tactic.

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 link.]

Where is it in WBM? It wasn't there before CEOP 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

by End 27.06.15 12:20

Dee Coy wrote:It is screamingly obvious to me that, in addition to Jim Gamble, certain people on here are very worried indeed, in my opinion.

Why are you perpetuating this damage limitation, Blue Bag and Syn?

Certainly makes you wonder. But yet again it's not the first time i wondered about BB!

by siobhan3443 27.06.15 12:24

sorry if ot but has it ever been explain satisfactorily why the madeleine shop was copyrighted in 2006?

by Syn 27.06.15 12:29

Dee Coy wrote:It is screamingly obvious to me that, in addition to Jim Gamble, certain people on here are very worried indeed, in my opinion.

Why are you perpetuating this damage limitation, Blue Bag and Syn?

I'm not worried at all, neither are WB and I'm sure neither are CEOP.

I am simply trying to stop people making fools of themselves when there is clearly an issue with WB. Perpetuating myths surrounding a pre-planned operation by CEOP does those who seek justice for Madeleine no favours at all. Like I have said previously, I don't doubt for a second that something untoward went on on May 2007 and Eddie and Keela were spot on sadly but I will not stand by whilst mountains are made out of molehills. There is nothing to this claim that CEOP uploaded an appeal on 30th April, WB simply screwed something up as has been clearly demonstrated. When they have resolved the issue they will hopefully let someone know exactly what happened.

by jeanmonroe 27.06.15 12:31

Dee Coy wrote:It is screamingly obvious to me that, in addition to Jim Gamble, certain people on here are very worried indeed, in my opinion.

Why are you perpetuating this damage limitation, Blue Bag and Syn?

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

"certain people on here are very worried indeed, ..........."

Well, I, for one, am not 'worried' in the 'slightest'!

I've 'asked' the McS to 'sue' me!

I've 'asked' MB and Sky to 'doorstep/interview' me

I've 'contacted/talked to/written to' police officers at Operation Grange.

The only 'thing' i'm 'worried' about, is that none of the 'above' will 'touch me, with a barge pole!"

"Worried"?

"Schummied"!

by Dee Coy 27.06.15 12:39

@Syn. Neither you or anyone else has demonstrated that there is 'clearly an issue with WB'. So why do you keep insisting there is one with no evidence? WB themselves have failed to provide an explanation.

So the conclusion for me until proof is provided in an understandable way is that the capture on the 30 April was correct, with all the consequences that poses for Jim and Ceop, I'm afraid.

by Dee Coy 27.06.15 12:41

Lol, Jean.

Didn't mean you for a second. I know you're not worried. big grin

by Syn 27.06.15 12:49

siobhan3443 wrote:sorry if ot but has it ever been explain satisfactorily why the madeleine shop was copyrighted in 2006?

Yes it has been. The shop back then was a bolt on created in Actinic

The online store was not set up in 2006. Whoever set up the store used a 2006 version of Actinic and copyright notice date auto-defaulted to 2006

Actinic updated their software in Jan 07 but the web developer for McCann using the old version of it had not downloaded the latest version.

I did a lot of research on this in August 2012 and worked with a Josh Barling at Actinic.

McCann now use Google Store iirc and have done so since June 2013 when they had all that downtime and there was a lot of speculation surrounding why.

by jeanmonroe 27.06.15 12:49

Syn wrote:

"WB simply screwed something up as has been clearly demonstrated."
----------------------------------------------------------

But, BUT, 'CAN' they 'afford' to 'admit' to erm, 'screwing up' when they proudly 'proclaim' that THEIR erm, 'documents/archives' are, and have 'been', used in court 'cases'?

The way, i look at it, is the same as 'almostgothic'............"IF, WBM admit to 'screwing up' then their credibility is 'shot to pieces', FOREVER, but, IF, what they say is 'true', then it's 'dynamite'"

by Syn 27.06.15 12:53

jeanmonroe wrote:Syn wrote:

"WB simply screwed something up as has been clearly demonstrated."
----------------------------------------------------------

CAN they 'afford' to 'admit' to erm, 'screwing up' when they proudly 'proclaim' that THEIR erm, 'documents/archives' are, and have 'been', used in previous court 'cases'?

The way, i look at it, is the same as 'almostgothic'............"IF, WBM admit to 'screwing up' then their credibility is 'shot to pieces', FOREVER, but, IF, what they say is 'true', then it's 'dynamite'"

No it's not. Legally it won't worry WB one bit - read Nuala here at 10:03 pm. She explains far more eloquently than I can.

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

"The URL isn't created until and unless the page is retrieved. At that point the URL is created with a date corresponding to the date Wayback also adds to the HTML coding of the page itself.

That date is retrieved from Wayback's archive database (for want of a better word) and is supposed to represent the date Wayback's crawler crawled the page, but nothing is 100% perfect.

Indeed Wayback makes it clear that if the date of a page is important for legal reasons it is up to the person wanting that proof to prove it.

In other words, Wayback makes no claims for a date to be absolutely correct, none at all.

Which is hardly surprising. 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"

by siobhan3443 27.06.15 12:57

@syn ty for the clear, percise and reasonable explaination

by Syn 27.06.15 13:00

Dee Coy wrote:@Syn. Neither you or anyone else has demonstrated that there is 'clearly an issue with WB'. So why do you keep insisting there is one with no evidence? WB themselves have failed to provide an explanation.

So the conclusion for me until proof is provided in an understandable way is that the capture on the 30 April was correct, with all the consequences that poses for Jim and Ceop, I'm afraid.

That's fine and totally up to you :)

Have you seen this post I made earlier?

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 link.]

Where is it in WBM? It wasn't there before CEOP 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

by Syn 27.06.15 13:00

siobhan3443 wrote:@syn ty for the clear, percise and reasonable explaination

Very welcome :)

by jack dexter 27.06.15 13:12

Syn wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:@Syn. Neither you or anyone else has demonstrated that there is 'clearly an issue with WB'. So why do you keep insisting there is one with no evidence? WB themselves have failed to provide an explanation.

So the conclusion for me until proof is provided in an understandable way is that the capture on the 30 April was correct, with all the consequences that poses for Jim and Ceop, I'm afraid.

That's fine and totally up to you :)

Have you seen this post I made earlier?

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 link.]

Where is it in WBM? It wasn't there before CEOP 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

Maybe if you repeat the same thing another 1000 times more we might believe you. Usually it takes about this for me to believe randoms on the net. Has blue bag gone know syn arrived to bash us for the next few hours till his return.

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