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

by Nuala 05.07.15 22:20

@ TheTruthWillOut

All those links go straight to/redirect to the CEOP homepage (ceop.police.uk)

Why is that?

I think Wayback has done that because the dates are incorrect and until everything is reindexed they are being redirected. That's a guess though, I haven't looked into it.

by Nuala 05.07.15 22:23

@ Whodunit

Look, a capture of mccann.html happened on April 30, 2007. This is a fact, on it's face.

No it's not a fact.

That's like saying a capture of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] happened on 30 Apr 2007, which is clearly impossible.

WBM hasn't even issued an 'official' denial of the veracity of this capture.

They have confirmed in writing that the date of 30 Apr 2007 for mccann.html is incorrect, and they are correcting it.

WBM will have to explain

Wayback doesn't have to explain anything. They are not accountable to us. I don't understand why you think they are.

by Verdi 05.07.15 23:54

Has Steve 'Stevo' Marsden elaborated on the subject anywhere? After all he is the person that triggered off this seemingly never ending exchange of technical expertise.

by Joss 06.07.15 3:15

whodunit wrote:@Nuala--"And yet . . . it happened:"

No...it didn't.

Look, a capture of mccann.html happened on April 30, 2007. This is a fact, on it's face. WBM hasn't even issued an 'official' denial of the veracity of this capture. Even if it did issue a public statement, like you and others will have to do in order to disprove this prima facie evidence WBM will have to explain 1. why and how and 2. how many more, and which, pages were affected by this glitch/error/extremely unlikely backdating snafu.

Who stated this is prima facie evidence, and has it proven to be such? What Trial will this so called prima facie evidence be presented in to the jury if the judge permits it? WBM are not accountable to joe public, lol.
They don't owe us anything. Maybe to sort this thing out why don't some of you obtain an affidavit from WBM about the veracity of the information from WBM? They give instructions on how to do that on their legal faq's.

by Joss 06.07.15 3:19

Verdi wrote:Has Steve 'Stevo' Marsden elaborated on the subject anywhere? After all he is the person that triggered off this seemingly never ending exchange of technical expertise.

I think Steve Marsden is on facebook, but i don't do fb, so have no idea if he is discussing it there or not?

by whodunit 06.07.15 12:20

@Nuala--"They have confirmed in writing that the date of 30 Apr 2007 for mccann.html is incorrect, and they are correcting it."

An e-mail from the office manager to a third party, written after being advised of the controversial nature of the issue, 'confirming the error' but devoid of an explanation does not an official statement make.

"Wayback doesn't have to explain anything. They are not accountable to us. I don't understand why you think they are."

And I do not understand why you do not understand that without an official, credible technical explanation from the company the burden of proof remains on those who claim this is an error. The burden of proof has not been met, cannot be met without, you guessed it, an official, credible technical explanation from the company.

@Joss--"Who stated this is prima facie evidence, and has it proven to be such?"

It is prima facie evidence because it is data. Cold and unbiased, with no possible agenda to lie, it is assumed accurate [prima facie] unless or until proven otherwise.

It is no different than the phone records of a murder suspect destroying his alibi, eg. a conversation from his landline, placing him at home, took place three hours earlier than he said it did, leaving him without an alibi for the time of the murder. The computer data which produced the records has no agenda to frame the guy thus the records are assumed accurate unless or until the suspect can prove a computer error. For that, he'll need cooperation from the company which produced the record.

@

by Joss 06.07.15 12:45

whodunit wrote:@Nuala--"They have confirmed in writing that the date of 30 Apr 2007 for mccann.html is incorrect, and they are correcting it."

An e-mail from the office manager to a third party, written after being advised of the controversial nature of the issue, 'confirming the error' but devoid of an explanation does not an official statement make.

"Wayback doesn't have to explain anything. They are not accountable to us. I don't understand why you think they are."

And I do not understand why you do not understand that without an official, credible technical explanation from the company the burden of proof remains on those who claim this is an error. The burden of proof has not been met, cannot be met without, you guessed it, an official, credible technical explanation from the company.

@Joss--"Who stated this is prima facie evidence, and has it proven to be such?"

It is prima facie evidence because it is data. Cold and unbiased, with no possible agenda to lie, it is assumed accurate [prima facie] unless or until proven otherwise.

It is no different than the phone records of a murder suspect destroying his alibi, eg. a conversation from his landline, placing him at home, took place three hours earlier than he said it did, leaving him without an alibi for the time of the murder. The computer data which produced the records has no agenda to frame the guy thus the records are assumed accurate unless or until the suspect can prove a computer error. For that, he'll need cooperation from the company which produced the record.

@

So as you claim the "burden of proof" is on WBM to prove it is an error, who exactly do you think they have to account for meeting this burden of proof when they state to the contrary? They state:

Does the Internet Archive's affidavit mean that the printout was actually the page posted on the Web at the recorded time?
The Internet Archive's affidavit only affirms that the printed document is a true and correct copy of our records. It remains your burden to convince the finder of fact what pages were up when.

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

And in regard to Prima Facie this is what the legal definition states:

Prima Facie

[Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.
In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Joss 06.07.15 12:55

I am still interested to know why people think debating the issue of the date of WBM in regard to the CEOP site is going to be some kind of bombshell evidence for wrongdoing in the McCann debacle? We have already been told the PJ were notified of this data and are not interested in it. Doesn't that tell us something? If the police are not interested in this information enough to investigate it in conjunction with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, then even if this is some kind of evidence into Madeleine's disappearance, who else will use the information if not those investigating what happened to her? Looks to me as if this information has hit a brick wall and is going nowhere.

by whodunit 06.07.15 13:05

Does the Internet Archive's affidavit mean that the printout was actually the page posted on the Web at the recorded time?
The Internet Archive's affidavit only affirms that the printed document is a true and correct copy of our records. It remains your burden to convince the finder of fact what pages were up when.

Well, first, this is concerning printouts not embedded coding. Second, the exact same thing can be said of cadaver dogs. The admissibility of their evidence can and has been challenged in court. Doesn't mean they're inaccurate or unreliable it just means they could be. And yet, because dogs, like data, are inherently unbiased the burden would be on a theoretical defendant to challenge their record. In a court of law, WBM evidence would be considered accurate unless it is successfully challenged and for that the underlying data would have to be subpoenaed and scrutinized. WBM would hand over this data or else be cited for breaking the law.

Be that as it may we are not a court of law, we are a bunch of people who are attempting to assess the credibility, accuracy, and reliability of evidence we have no way of lawfully challenging directly. We cannot force witnesses to answer questions or companies to produce affidavits nor can we subpoena data. On the other hand, if all statements by every 'representative' of every entity involved in the McCann case could be taken at face value this forum would not exist.

by Joss 06.07.15 13:33

whodunit wrote:Does the Internet Archive's affidavit mean that the printout was actually the page posted on the Web at the recorded time?
The Internet Archive's affidavit only affirms that the printed document is a true and correct copy of our records. It remains your burden to convince the finder of fact what pages were up when.

Well, first, this is concerning printouts not embedded coding. Second, the exact same thing can be said of cadaver dogs. The admissibility of their evidence can and has been challenged in court. Doesn't mean they're inaccurate or unreliable it just means they could be. And yet, because dogs, like data, are inherently unbiased the burden would be on a theoretical defendant to challenge their record. In a court of law, WBM evidence would be considered accurate unless it is successfully challenged and for that the underlying data would have to be subpoenaed and scrutinized. WBM would hand over this data or else be cited for breaking the law.

Be that as it may we are not a court of law, we are a bunch of people who are attempting to assess the credibility, accuracy, and reliability of evidence we have no way of lawfully challenging directly. We cannot force witnesses to answer questions or companies to produce affidavits nor can we subpoena data. On the other hand, if all statements by every 'representative' of every entity involved in the McCann case could be taken at face value this forum would not exist.

WBM have never entered into any legal wrangling to my knowledge, as they remain unbiased in any legal matters. They just provide what their WBM has got if they can provide the info. They are a huge archive/digital library is all.
Again this is what they state:
We are not in the business of responding to requests for affidavits, or authenticating pages or other information from the Wayback Machine; this is why we make our collections available at no cost via our Web site, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
As a nonprofit, our resources are limited, and these kinds of requests are a significant drain on our time and funds.

Can I subpoena someone to testify to the authenticity of the URLs in the Wayback Machine?
The Internet Archive would prefer if you didn't, and will most likely fight it. The Internet Archive is a small non-profit, and taking a member of the team for even a few days significantly effects what the Archive is trying to accomplish. Please consider alternatives to subpoenaing someone from the Internet Archive, including using the standard affidavit or judicial notice.
Will the Internet Archive take a position in my legal dispute?
The Internet Archive strives to be a disinterested third party in all disputes involving its collection items. If you are using Wayback Machine documents to make a case in your legal dispute, the Internet Archive will not take an idealogical or other position in said dispute.

I think that is a bit different in comparison to cadaver dog evidence and other aspects of this case that is all verifiable in the PJ files on the findings of the official investigation at the time Madeleine disappeared, which we have a foundation to go by to discuss the case from. Apples to Oranges IMO.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.07.15 13:51

whodunit wrote:@Nuala--"They have confirmed in writing that the date of 30 Apr 2007 for mccann.html is incorrect, and they are correcting it."

An e-mail from the office manager to a third party, written after being advised of the controversial nature of the issue, 'confirming the error' but devoid of an explanation does not an official statement make.

"Wayback doesn't have to explain anything. They are not accountable to us. I don't understand why you think they are."

And I do not understand why you do not understand that without an official, credible technical explanation from the company the burden of proof remains on those who claim this is an error. The burden of proof has not been met, cannot be met without, you guessed it, an official, credible technical explanation from the company.

@Joss--"Who stated this is prima facie evidence, and has it proven to be such?"

It is prima facie evidence because it is data. Cold and unbiased, with no possible agenda to lie, it is assumed accurate [prima facie] unless or until proven otherwise.

It is no different than the phone records of a murder suspect destroying his alibi, eg. a conversation from his landline, placing him at home, took place three hours earlier than he said it did, leaving him without an alibi for the time of the murder. The computer data which produced the records has no agenda to frame the guy thus the records are assumed accurate unless or until the suspect can prove a computer error. For that, he'll need cooperation from the company which produced the record.

@

@ whodunit & @ Nuala

As a non-tecchie, I find whodunit's arguments above persuasive in maintaining the possibility that the Wayback 'capture' was a genuine capture of a mccann.html page already in preparation on the CEOP website, with one photo on it, at 11.58am 3 secs on Monday 30 April 2007.

Of course, whodunit is right, the burden of proof is very much on Wayback to (a) prove that this was an error and (b) explain how and when that error arose.

Why is the burden of proof on Wayback? Because they profess they can produce accurate records, so accurate that they have been used countless times not only in civil cases but also in criminal cases, including at least one murder case.

Given that, Wayback themselves, never mind Nuala or Syn or any other experts, do have a duty to explain to us here and to the world how this error occurred.

In the light of that, I find the following disturbing:

1. Wayback's e-mail to Isabelle McFadden, 17 June (the day Steve Marsden reported his 'capture') at 12.17pm (US California time):

Hi Isabelle,

Please be aware that we have now confirmed that the time stamp for the record appears to be incorrect. We are still investigating the issue but I can tell you the following at this point:

The archived record [link given] appears to be July 31, 2007.

+++

I am interested in the parts I have marked out in red above:

a) the record only 'appears' to be correct
b) Wayback, back on 17 June, were merely still 'investigating' what the appaent error was (i.e. they didn't have a clue at that stage)
c) the record only 'appears to be' from 31 July, 2017.

No way is that anything remotely like discharging the burden of proof which whodunit absolutely correctly says is firmly in Wayback's court. I am amazed they have not cleared this up yet.

2. The post by Get 'em Goncalo at 9.55pm on 17 June (Day One of this controversy), page 11 of the 'Claim by 'Stevo'' thread, in which she reported Lizzy Taylor as stating the following:

QUOTE

Lizzy Hideho Taylor NOTE: I have spoken to the legal representative of Internet Archive and he will be emailing me with a message regarding their Wayback Machine and then will be passing the info to his team to check all the technical details.

I asked:

*Why there was a pge existing for Madeleine on April 30th

*Why there was a link to download a poster from a website that did not exist until a few days later.

*Why the homepage for April 30th showed 'Latest News' for October 2007 (six months later) when all the preceeding pages had correct data

*Whether the source code/HTML could have been tampered with.

+++
Again, AFAIK, none of this information has yet been provided by Wayback, all we have so far is 'some kind of subset error'.

3. The length of time without an answer

If this was an error, simple or otherwise, it could and should have been answered by Wayback by now in a message of no more than 200 words, so everyone can understand what (if anything) has gone wrong. Yet this is now Day 19 of this controversy and it looks to me like a deliberate refusal by Wayback to explain what they said 17 days ago 'appears to be' an error.

Incidentally I cannot follow the reasoning by some posters that Wayback has no responsibility to explain its errors. Do those posters truly believe that?

++++++++++++++++++++

Now to answer some points by Joss:

QUOTE Joss:

I am still interested to know why people think debating the issue of the date of WBM in regard to the CEOP site is going to be some kind of bombshell evidence for wrongdoing in the McCann debacle?

REPLY: Because if that date was an accurate capture of data on the CEOP site on 30 April, prima facie it suggests that something had happened to Madeleine before 11.58am on 30 April

We have already been told the PJ were notified of this data and are not interested in it. Doesn't that tell us something? If the police are not interested in this information enough to investigate it in conjunction with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, then even if this is some kind of evidence into Madeleine's disappearance, who else will use the information if not those investigating what happened to her? Looks to me as if this information has hit a brick wall and is going nowhere.

REPLY: Joss, first you assume that the PJ are still interested in investigating the crime that led to Madeleine being reported missing. That is very doubtful. Many reports suggest otherwise.

Second, what 'information' or 'data' have the PJ been given? Probably, by now, a mixture of 'There was a Madeleine page on CEOP on 30 April' and 'Oh no there wasn't'. They are hardly likely to be interested unless they have watertight forensic evidence that this was a genuine 'capture' of data on 30 April. Finally, you said: 'We have already been told that the PJ...are not interested [in this information].

So who told us this? When? How reliable a report is it?

by Guest 06.07.15 14:04

TB, your last line above. A poster, cloak'ndagger, told us. Apparently Portuguese experts rejected the info that Isabelle McFadden sent the PJ.

by sallypelt 06.07.15 14:11

Tony Bennett wrote:
whodunit wrote:@Nuala--"They have confirmed in writing that the date of 30 Apr 2007 for mccann.html is incorrect, and they are correcting it."

An e-mail from the office manager to a third party, written after being advised of the controversial nature of the issue, 'confirming the error' but devoid of an explanation does not an official statement make.

"Wayback doesn't have to explain anything. They are not accountable to us. I don't understand why you think they are."

And I do not understand why you do not understand that without an official, credible technical explanation from the company the burden of proof remains on those who claim this is an error. The burden of proof has not been met, cannot be met without, you guessed it, an official, credible technical explanation from the company.

@Joss--"Who stated this is prima facie evidence, and has it proven to be such?"

It is prima facie evidence because it is data. Cold and unbiased, with no possible agenda to lie, it is assumed accurate [prima facie] unless or until proven otherwise.

It is no different than the phone records of a murder suspect destroying his alibi, eg. a conversation from his landline, placing him at home, took place three hours earlier than he said it did, leaving him without an alibi for the time of the murder. The computer data which produced the records has no agenda to frame the guy thus the records are assumed accurate unless or until the suspect can prove a computer error. For that, he'll need cooperation from the company which produced the record.

@
@ whodunit & @ Nuala

As a non-tecchie, I find whodunit's arguments above persuasive in maintaining the possibility that the Wayback 'capture' was a genuine capture of a mccann.html page already in preparation on the CEOP website, with one photo on it, at 11.58am 3 secs on Monday 30 April 2007.

Of course, whodunit is right, the burden of proof is very much on Wayback to (a) prove that this was an error and (b) explain how and when that error arose.

Why is the burden of proof on Wayback? Because they profess they can produce accurate records, so accurate that they have been used countless times not only in civil cases but also in criminal cases, including at least one murder case.

Given that, Wayback themselves, never mind Nuala or Syn or any other experts, do have a duty to explain to us here and to the world how this error occurred.

In the light of that, I find the following disturbing:

1. Wayback's e-mail to Isabelle McFadden, 17 June (the day Steve Marsden reported his 'capture') at 12.17pm (US California time):

Hi Isabelle,

Please be aware that we have now confirmed that the time stamp for the record appears to be incorrect. We are still investigating the issue but I can tell you the following at this point:

The archived record [link given] appears to be July 31, 2007.

+++

I am interested in the parts I have marked out in red above:

a) the record only 'appears' to be correct
b) Wayback, back on 17 June, were merely still 'investigating' what the appaent error was (i.e. they didn't have a clue at that stage)
c) the record only 'appears to be' from 31 July, 2017.

No way is that anything remotely like discharging the burden of proof which whodunit absolutely correctly says is firmly in Wayback's court. I am amazed they have not cleared this up yet.

2. The post by Get 'em Goncalo at 9.55pm on 17 June (Day One of this controversy), page 11 of the 'Claim by 'Stevo'' thread, in which she reported Lizzy Taylor as stating the following:

QUOTE

Lizzy Hideho Taylor NOTE: I have spoken to the legal representative of Internet Archive and he will be emailing me with a message regarding their Wayback Machine and then will be passing the info to his team to check all the technical details.

I asked:

*Why there was a pge existing for Madeleine on April 30th

*Why there was a link to download a poster from a website that did not exist until a few days later.

*Why the homepage for April 30th showed 'Latest News' for October 2007 (six months later) when all the preceeding pages had correct data

*Whether the source code/HTML could have been tampered with.

+++
Again, AFAIK, none of this information has yet been provided by Wayback, all we have so far is 'some kind of subset error'.

3. The length of time without an answer

If this was an error, simple or otherwise, it could and should have been answered by Wayback by now in a message of no more than 200 words, so everyone can understand what (if anything) has gone wrong. Yet this is now Day 19 of this controversy and it looks to me like a deliberate refusal by Wayback to explain what they said 17 days ago 'appears to be' an error.

Incidentally I cannot follow the reasoning by some posters that Wayback has no responsibility to explain its errors. Do those posters truly believe that?

++++++++++++++++++++

Now to answer some points by Joss:

QUOTE Joss:

I am still interested to know why people think debating the issue of the date of WBM in regard to the CEOP site is going to be some kind of bombshell evidence for wrongdoing in the McCann debacle?

REPLY: Because if that date was an accurate capture of data on the CEOP site on 30 April, prima facie it suggests that something had happened to Madeleine before 11.58am on 30 April

We have already been told the PJ were notified of this data and are not interested in it. Doesn't that tell us something? If the police are not interested in this information enough to investigate it in conjunction with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, then even if this is some kind of evidence into Madeleine's disappearance, who else will use the information if not those investigating what happened to her? Looks to me as if this information has hit a brick wall and is going nowhere.

REPLY: Joss, first you assume that the PJ are still interested in investigating the crime that led to Madeleine being reported missing. That is very doubtful. Many reports suggest otherwise.

Second, what 'information' or 'data' have the PJ been given? Probably, by now, a mixture of 'There was a Madeleine page on CEOP on 30 April' and 'Oh no there wasn't'. They are hardly likely to be interested unless they have watertight forensic evidence that this was a genuine 'capture' of data on 30 April. Finally, you said: 'We have already been told that the PJ...are not interested [in this information].

So who told us this? When? How reliable a report is it?

What concerns me about the 30 April 2007 is, why this date? The "coincidences" in this McCann saga just keep stacking up. If the date had been, for example, 15 April, or sometime earlier than the 30 April, then I doubt if people would be questioning it. Now, put together the photographs of Madeleine McCann, taken on holiday in Portugal, and again, we are left with many questions. Take the "playground" photograph, for example; Plenty of people in the background milling around. No problem with that photograph. People can be identified. A perfectly genuine photograph, in my opinion. But let's fast forward. Photographs of Madeleine become as rare as hens' teeth. No shortage of the other T7's children, as we can see from the PJ files. As for Madeleine, we have the tennis photograph, and the "last photograph" by the pool. Not ONE single person in the background of either photograph. Moreover, Madeleine's skin is so much softer in the "last photograph" compared to the tennis photograph, which, we are told, was taken EARLIER than the last photograph my be pool. Nah! I am NOT buying it.

by sallypelt 06.07.15 14:12

This just popped up on my screen:

Maintenance en cours : [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Le service est actuellement en maintenance et sera à nouveau disponible d’ici quelques instants.
Vous trouverez des informations utiles sur notre Forum d'aide. Nous vous prions de nous excuser des désagréments occasionnés. Merci de votre compréhension.

[*]Maintenance in progress : [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

We are actually proceeding a maintenance and will be back in a few minutes.
You will find useful informations on our Support forum. Sorry for any inconvenience that may be caused by this maintenance. Thank you for your patience.

[*]الموقع رهن الصيانة : [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Joss 06.07.15 14:38

Now to answer some points by Joss:

QUOTE Joss:

I am still interested to know why people think debating the issue of the date of WBM in regard to the CEOP site is going to be some kind of bombshell evidence for wrongdoing in the McCann debacle?

REPLY: Because if that date was an accurate capture of data on the CEOP site on 30 April, prima facie it suggests that something had happened to Madeleine before 11.58am on 30 April

We have already been told the PJ were notified of this data and are not interested in it. Doesn't that tell us something? If the police are not interested in this information enough to investigate it in conjunction with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, then even if this is some kind of evidence into Madeleine's disappearance, who else will use the information if not those investigating what happened to her? Looks to me as if this information has hit a brick wall and is going nowhere.

REPLY: Joss, first you assume that the PJ are still interested in investigating the crime that led to Madeleine being reported missing. That is very doubtful. Many reports suggest otherwise.

Second, what 'information' or 'data' have the PJ been given? Probably, by now, a mixture of 'There was a Madeleine page on CEOP on 30 April' and 'Oh no there wasn't'. They are hardly likely to be interested unless they have watertight forensic evidence that this was a genuine 'capture' of data on 30 April. Finally, you said: 'We have already been told that the PJ...are not interested [in this information].

So who told us this? When? How reliable a report is it?

Tony, this was posted in regard to your question:

cloak'ndagger on Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:59 pm
I would urge caution. . The story has been debunked by Portuguese experts. . I will have written confirmation shortly. .

Am gutted..
cloak'ndagger on Fri Jun 19, 2015 6:47 pm

Ladyinred wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:I would urge caution. . The story has been debunked by Portuguese experts. . I will have written confirmation shortly. .

Am gutted..
You are Magnum from over the road? Resistor's posts are interesting and helpful in understanding this.

Yes I have followed his posts with great interest .. From Portugal the news is that the story is too vague and is a ''red herring so it is back to Square one. .

Ladyinred on Fri Jun 19, 2015 6:54 pm
Who/what are your sources in Portugal?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:46 pm

Ladyinred wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:I would urge caution. . The story has been debunked by Portuguese experts. . I will have written confirmation shortly. .

Am gutted..
Who are these Portuguese experts?

Isabelle Mc Fadden has spoken of how she passed the information she gleaned onto the PJ. ..I can only tell you that the PJ cannot use this as evidence.. Take it or leave it.

by Joss 06.07.15 14:47

@ Tony Bennett, Perhaps Isabelle McFadden would be able to elaborate more on the question of what specifically transpired between the information relayed to the PJ and how they came to the conclusion that they did?

by Nuala 06.07.15 17:22

@ Tony Bennett

As a non-tecchie, I find whodunit's arguments above persuasive in maintaining the possibility that the Wayback 'capture' was a genuine capture of a mccann.html page already in preparation on the CEOP website, with one photo on it, at 11.58am 3 secs on Monday 30 April 2007.

As a non-techie, what arguments from Whodunit persuaded you that these captures were also correct:

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

Because if the mccann.html capture was correct, then those are correct as well, along with the thousands of other CEOP website examples also given the same 30 Apr 2007 date and time.

The above examples are only a tiny sample of the masses of news articles given a date of 30 Apr 2007, when the said articles hadn't even been published on that date. Note that the date of the articles is the date CEOP gave them when they published them, so 20070810 isn't a date from Wayback, it's a date from CEOP.

CEOP dated them 20070810 and when Wayback archived them it gave them a date of 30 Apr 2007.

I think you would agree that it's impossible for an article dated 20070810 and therefore not even in existence on 30 Apr 2007 to have been crawled by Wayback and correctly dated on 30 Apr 2007.

I think even a non-techie can see that.

So can you tell me what persuaded you that those news articles are in fact correctly dated as being in existence on 30 Apr 2007?

by **Tony Bennett** 06.07.15 17:46

Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

As a non-techie, what arguments from Whodunit persuaded you that these captures were also correct:

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

Because if the mccann.html capture was correct, then those are correct as well, along with the thousands of other CEOP website examples also given the same 30 Apr 2007 date and time.

The above examples are only a tiny sample of the masses of news articles given a date of 30 Apr 2007, when the said articles hadn't even been published on that date. Note that the date of the articles is the date CEOP gave them when they published them, so 20070810 isn't a date from Wayback, it's a date from CEOP.

CEOP dated them 20070810 and when Wayback archived them it gave them a date of 30 Apr 2007.

I think you would agree that it's impossible for an article dated 20070810 and therefore not even in existence on 30 Apr 2007 to have been crawled by Wayback and correctly dated on 30 Apr 2007.

I think even a non-techie can see that.

So can you tell me what persuaded you that those news articles are in fact correctly dated as being in existence on 30 Apr 2007?

I follow your argument - and, speaking as a non-tecchie, if neither whodunit nor anyone else can supply a good answer to your point, I would declare:

'Advantage Nuala'

by sallypelt 06.07.15 18:48

Please can someone tell me the date this Wayback machine "glitch" first hit the headlines here on this forum?

by Guest 06.07.15 18:53

Wednesday 17th June by cloak'ndagger.

by sallypelt 06.07.15 18:56

Ladyinred wrote:Wednesday 17th June by cloak'ndagger.

Thank you, Ladyinred. I can't believe that the time has gone so quickly. The reason for my asking is, I saw this post from "19 days ago". How time flies.

Debbie Law • 19 days ago
Hi Natasha with reference to my emails please find enclosed the link showing ceop listed Madeleine McCann as missing on the 30th of April 2007 Before the date given to the public of the 3rd of May 2007

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

by SixMillionQuid 06.07.15 19:12

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

As a non-techie, what arguments from Whodunit persuaded you that these captures were also correct:

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

Because if the mccann.html capture was correct, then those are correct as well, along with the thousands of other CEOP website examples also given the same 30 Apr 2007 date and time.

The above examples are only a tiny sample of the masses of news articles given a date of 30 Apr 2007, when the said articles hadn't even been published on that date. Note that the date of the articles is the date CEOP gave them when they published them, so 20070810 isn't a date from Wayback, it's a date from CEOP.

CEOP dated them 20070810 and when Wayback archived them it gave them a date of 30 Apr 2007.

I think you would agree that it's impossible for an article dated 20070810 and therefore not even in existence on 30 Apr 2007 to have been crawled by Wayback and correctly dated on 30 Apr 2007.

I think even a non-techie can see that.

So can you tell me what persuaded you that those news articles are in fact correctly dated as being in existence on 30 Apr 2007?
I follow your argument - and, speaking as a non-tecchie, if neither whodunit nor anyone else can supply a good answer to your point, I would declare:

'Advantage Nuala'

Sorry but why do those four links quoted take you directly to the ceop page? Where are the Wayback archived versions?

by Nuala 06.07.15 20:21

@ SixMillionQuid

Sorry but why do those four links quoted take you directly to the ceop page?

I believe Wayback is redirecting them because they have been archived incorrectly, but that's just a guess, I haven't looked into it.

Where are the Wayback archived versions?

You will find them here:

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

Note that you have to have the asterisk on the end and when I preview it here the asterisk isn't clickable so you might have to copy and paste.

When the URLs appear and you click on them they will all come up with an error because they have been incorrectly archived with the wrong date.

Note also, that all of the information above I have given already on this thread and/or the previous thread.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.07.15 20:58

Nuala wrote:@ SixMillionQuid

Sorry but why do those four links quoted take you directly to the ceop page?

I believe Wayback is redirecting them because they have been archived incorrectly, but that's just a guess, I haven't looked into it.

OK, so you don't know why four links take you direct to the CEOP page and not to the Wayback archives

Where are the Wayback archived versions?

You will find them here:

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

Note that you have to have the asterisk on the end and when I preview it here the asterisk isn't clickable so you might have to copy and paste.

When the URLs appear and you click on them they will all come up with an error because they have been incorrectly archived with the wrong date.

When I click on the above link (with the asterisk), it gives me dates when the Wayback Machine crawled the web, and apparently 'found' things (data). These dates do not now include anything at all having been 'found' on 30 April 2007 - i.e. no crawl was made of the CEOP website on that date. So am I right in stating:

"The CEOP page was NOT crawled at all on 30 April; Wayback made some kind of mistake, we're not sure what could have caused it, but it looks like some kind of subset error'"?

Also can I ask if any other date when the Wayback Machine crawled the CEOP page is similarly affected? - or was it just the (alleged) crawl on 30 April 2007? Many apologies if you have already covered this on this long thread.

One final question please... (@ Nuala or Syn or anyone else)

Am I right in assuming that there WAS a date, an occasion, when Wayback DID crawl the CEOP page and found the following:

a mccann.htlm page, with prepared spaces for two photographs, one of them occupied with an old photo of Madeleine?

If that is correct, and if there was NO Wayback crawl on 30 April 2007, do we know precisely on what date that crawl was made please?

Further, so far as we know, CEOP never published a Madeleine page with just one photo on it and a blank space for the other photo.

And is the following statement correct please:

"What Wayback DID capture (on whatever date) was a dummy page not yet ready to be uploaded to the 'live' CEOP website - it was not a 'live' page".

If you say it WAS live when 'captured', why then would CEOP upload, for the public to view, a half-finished page?

by Nuala 06.07.15 21:22

@ Tony Bennett

When I click on the above link (with the asterisk), it gives me dates when the Wayback Machine crawled the web, and apparently 'found' things (data). These dates do not now include anything at all having been 'found' on 30 April 2007 - i.e. no crawl was made of the CEOP website on that date.

If you click on the above link it won't work because this forum doesn't recognise the asterisk. That's why I said you might have to copy and paste. So copy the whole of the URL including the asterisk and then paste it into the address bar of your browser.

I will now read the rest of what you've said, but wanted to post this because you're looking at a different page, the wrong page, to get the data we're currently looking at.

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