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

by Guest 13.07.15 11:13

plebgate wrote:So much for HKP being too grand to re-join this site. ha ha.

I just read a post from JeanM asking if Nuala used to be a pro McCann. Answer from mod. was tha tthey didn't care. Along those lines.

I am wondering why previously banned posters can re-join and start asking questions of others?

As I said at the time I rejoined, I'm only posting on this thread (this subject could well have been, or may still have huge implications) because it's no longer open to guests.

As for my questioning of whodunnit if you read the link somebody knows about codexgeo and is calling themselves whodunnit on another blog. Fairly reasonable question I would have thought.

We have however had 170 odd pages and you've not added anything about the actual thread subject so would you care to let us know your views.

by whodunit 13.07.15 13:15

HKP wrote:
whodunit wrote:HKP, I can't seem to verify this at WBM. If you mean the captures at archive.is, you know those are manually uploaded? archive.is do not use crawlers.
This is a bit puzzling, are you not the same whodunnit as this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yes.

I had mis-copied the codexgeo url to WBM but my comment you linked to above still stands. I cannot verify 16k captures for codexgeo.co.uk at WBM.

by Guest 13.07.15 14:10

whodunit wrote:
HKP wrote:
whodunit wrote:HKP, I can't seem to verify this at WBM. If you mean the captures at archive.is, you know those are manually uploaded? archive.is do not use crawlers.
This is a bit puzzling, are you not the same whodunnit as this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yes.

I had mis-copied the codexgeo url to WBM but my comment you linked to above still stands. I cannot verify 16k captures for codexgeo.co.uk at WBM.

As far as I'm led to believe (I didn't download the codexgeo info. myself) the data was also wooshed for this timestamp so will not be available now. Both rustyjames and Seahorse found 16033 URLs.

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

by whodunit 13.07.15 14:18

HKP wrote:
whodunit wrote:
HKP wrote:
whodunit wrote:HKP, I can't seem to verify this at WBM. If you mean the captures at archive.is, you know those are manually uploaded? archive.is do not use crawlers.
This is a bit puzzling, are you not the same whodunnit as this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yes.

I had mis-copied the codexgeo url to WBM but my comment you linked to above still stands. I cannot verify 16k captures for codexgeo.co.uk at WBM.
As far as I'm led to believe (I didn't download the codexgeo info. myself) the data was also wooshed for this timestamp so will not be available now. Both rustyjames and Seahorse found 16033 URLs.

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

I asked Seahorse how she found that site and she said she did it by googling 20070430115803. Now you try it. The main link that does not refer to our discussions is a link to archive.is

by Guest 13.07.15 15:04

whodunit wrote:
HKP wrote:
whodunit wrote:
HKP wrote:
whodunit wrote:HKP, I can't seem to verify this at WBM. If you mean the captures at archive.is, you know those are manually uploaded? archive.is do not use crawlers.
This is a bit puzzling, are you not the same whodunnit as this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yes.

I had mis-copied the codexgeo url to WBM but my comment you linked to above still stands. I cannot verify 16k captures for codexgeo.co.uk at WBM.
As far as I'm led to believe (I didn't download the codexgeo info. myself) the data was also wooshed for this timestamp so will not be available now. Both rustyjames and Seahorse found 16033 URLs.

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

I asked Seahorse how she found that site and she said she did it by googling 20070430115803. Now you try it. The main link that does not refer to our discussions is a link to archive.is

Seahorse clearly states (and gives a link) that IA has the records and that is further backed up by rustyjames at the link above. From the MMM....

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

I saw no need to look at that data as it has little bearing on the mccann.html found on that timestamp (only rustyjames found 16033, Seahorse was less)

by whodunit 13.07.15 15:12

@HKP---"Seahorse clearly states (and gives a link) that IA has the records and that is further backed up by rustyjames at the link above. From the MMM....""

I realize this but I cannot verify it for myself.

5,619 URLs have been captured for this domain.

Or they've wiped all memory of April 30th from the WBM archives. The only capture even close to April 30 is March 16:

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

16

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

Edit: Sorry, the code is rendering links only. Here is a link to the page, right click and see the coding for yourself.

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

by Guest 13.07.15 15:59

whodunit wrote:@HKP---"Seahorse clearly states (and gives a link) that IA has the records and that is further backed up by rustyjames at the link above. From the MMM....""

I realize this but I cannot verify it for myself.

5,619 URLs have been captured for this domain.

Or they've wiped all memory of April 30th from the WBM archives. The only capture even close to April 30 is March 16:

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

16

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

Edit: Sorry, the code is rendering links only. Here is a link to the page, right click and see the coding for yourself.

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

You can't verify it for yourself because you are too late the 30/04 for both ceop and codexgeo have both been withdrawn (rustyjames pointed this out a few days ago)

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

As I've said before none of this is evidence that mccann. html was not captured on 30/04 and IA's answers have not exactly helped clarify.

by Guest 13.07.15 16:16

@ whodunit

This will give you all of 2007 as recorded today

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

5550 URLs for 2007 (01/01 to 31/12) and none for 30/04/07 using the advanced search method (no ranges just exact timestamp)

by rustyjames 14.07.15 9:46

Yes the 30/4/07 stuff for codexgeo disappeared at the same time the ceop stuff did.

The full capture of the CDX info prior to it disappearing is nearly 3Mb, and I'm not sure where to post it, however I've put some on pastebin, and a snippet below - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Code:: uk,co,codexgeo)/ 20070430115803 http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/ text/html 200 CVVY2NKHPA7WBTOXZTIH5KXULHCC5MEH 1825 uk,co,codexgeo)/dsa/architect_full.php?id=l000008 20070430115803 http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/architect_full.php?id=L000008 text/html 200 MU4QMFOETKCSEDEWRVIGMUIHJLSJ54IM 3389 uk,co,codexgeo)/dsa/architect_full.php?id=l000058 20070430115803 http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/architect_full.php?id=L000058 text/html 200 K422UMKEDPHODU7RLK7MIMNKUNL5FKQD 3804 uk,co,codexgeo)/dsa/architect_full.php?id=l000086 20070430115803 http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/architect_full.php?id=L000086 text/html 200 KHUWL6MNBGIQCQO2J66NHWEFH6U4CUWP 2430 uk,co,codexgeo)/dsa/architect_full.php?id=l000099 20070430115803 http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/architect_full.php?id=L000099 text/html 200 ZLFXQYEN54LPOLWVTR5GFW6EGLQU7D3M 3503 uk,co,codexgeo)/dsa/architect_full.php?id=l000120 20070430115803 http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/architect_full.php?id=L000120 text/html 200 T573HI6BPVZ6IU3WMJPYUSBYDATSKH3H 3513 uk,co,codexgeo)/dsa/architect_full.php?id=l000127 20070430115803 http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/architect_full.php?id=L000127 text/html 200 6R5ED3OS4TCITWDUZXOBA4HJ53CRWNPI 5215 uk,co,codexgeo)/dsa/architect_full.php?id=l000134 20070430115803 http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/architect_full.php?id=L000134 text/html 200 KPWJ7TIF7SHJ42S56VQ3HT7BLIZIEVQS 2558 uk,co,codexgeo)/dsa/architect_full.php?id=l000136 20070430115803 http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/architect_full.php?id=l000136 text/html 200 ED72HBMGJOYYE2JGLW42VFHMPZCGVQRJ 7412 uk,co,codexgeo)/dsa/architect_full.php?id=l000140 20070430115803 http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/architect_full.php?id=L000140 text/html 200 IIK6TZRZWYFB2ZE3T5RDEAVS4OSPTEJD 2414 uk,co,codexgeo)/dsa/architect_full.php?id=l000141 20070430115803 http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/architect_full.php?id=L000141 text/html 200 G5AEY4ODDX6FTHGWRWKUHVHK2Y2P66LB 6787 uk,co,codexgeo)/dsa/architect_full.php?id=l000159 20070430115803 http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/architect_full.php?id=L000159 text/html 200 DJA6D2JVLCCOPZFHK57LZYYUBC36HMWE 4967 uk,co,codexgeo)/dsa/architect_full.php?id=l000172 20070430115803 http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/architect_full.php?id=L000172 text/html 200 ABZPZXM3EXSMP434UNWSEX6JEFHFFGUR 9783 ......

by Guest 14.07.15 16:37

[size=43]Whilst the codexgeo site appears to have the same issue from what rustyjames has posted, it can be seen that repetition features highly (303 from that one page), a significant question (for me anyway) is; can it be seen that there are ‘future’ urls captured here as well?

Some examples of some of the internets most popular sites and their capture performance on 30/04 (which indicates crawls were made on 30/04/07)[/size]

Yahoo:- 17 urls captured that day 20070430101936 being prior and 20070430140707 being post, both times1 url only captured.

Amazon:- 354 urls captured that day 20070430115536 being prior and 20070430120052 being post, both times 1 url only captured.

New York Times:- 1 url captured that day 20070430142359

CNN:- 7 urls captured that day 20070430081217 being prior and 20070430122003 being post, both times 1 url only captured.

Apple.com:- 4 urls captured that day 20070430091005 being prior the next being on 01/05 at 20070501102447, both times 2 urls captured.

Youtube:- 131 urls captured that day 20070430112059 being prior and 20070430120153 being post, both times 1 url only being captured.

As far as I can see both the sites (ceop & codexgeo) bode well for there being an actual capture at 20070430115803 as there is nothing to suggest some sort of capture did not occur (the examples are of the Wayback machine working perfectly fine)

by rustyjames 14.07.15 20:06

HKP wrote:[size=43]Whilst the codexgeo site appears to have the same issue from what rustyjames has posted, it can be seen that repetition features highly (303 from that one page), a significant question (for me anyway) is; can it be seen that there are ‘future’ urls captured here as well?

Some examples of some of the internets most popular sites and their capture performance on 30/04 (which indicates crawls were made on 30/04/07)[/size]

Yahoo:- 17 urls captured that day 20070430101936 being prior and 20070430140707 being post, both times1 url only captured.

Amazon:- 354 urls captured that day 20070430115536 being prior and 20070430120052 being post, both times 1 url only captured.

New York Times:- 1 url captured that day 20070430142359

CNN:- 7 urls captured that day 20070430081217 being prior and 20070430122003 being post, both times 1 url only captured.

Apple.com:- 4 urls captured that day 20070430091005 being prior the next being on 01/05 at 20070501102447, both times 2 urls captured.

Youtube:- 131 urls captured that day 20070430112059 being prior and 20070430120153 being post, both times 1 url only being captured.

As far as I can see both the sites (ceop & codexgeo) bode well for there being an actual capture at 20070430115803 as there is nothing to suggest some sort of capture did not occur (the examples are of the Wayback machine working perfectly fine)

Not sure I fully understand what you are saying here, however I've just put the full codexgeo CDX capture in a pivot table, and all URLs are unique, (via the 'id' parameters). There are no URLs such as the ceop news articles that help date any of the entries.

by Guest 14.07.15 20:46

rustyjames wrote:
HKP wrote:[size=43]Whilst the codexgeo site appears to have the same issue from what rustyjames has posted, it can be seen that repetition features highly (303 from that one page), a significant question (for me anyway) is; can it be seen that there are ‘future’ urls captured here as well?

Some examples of some of the internets most popular sites and their capture performance on 30/04 (which indicates crawls were made on 30/04/07)[/size]

Yahoo:- 17 urls captured that day 20070430101936 being prior and 20070430140707 being post, both times1 url only captured.

Amazon:- 354 urls captured that day 20070430115536 being prior and 20070430120052 being post, both times 1 url only captured.

New York Times:- 1 url captured that day 20070430142359

CNN:- 7 urls captured that day 20070430081217 being prior and 20070430122003 being post, both times 1 url only captured.

Apple.com:- 4 urls captured that day 20070430091005 being prior the next being on 01/05 at 20070501102447, both times 2 urls captured.

Youtube:- 131 urls captured that day 20070430112059 being prior and 20070430120153 being post, both times 1 url only being captured.

As far as I can see both the sites (ceop & codexgeo) bode well for there being an actual capture at 20070430115803 as there is nothing to suggest some sort of capture did not occur (the examples are of the Wayback machine working perfectly fine)

Not sure I fully understand what you are saying here, however I've just put the full codexgeo CDX capture in a pivot table, and all URLs are unique, (via the 'id' parameters). There are no URLs such as the ceop news articles that help date any of the entries.

Thanks for the info.
They all have a different id but they are actually the same page repeated over and over again, in your example /dsa/architect_full.php is repeated but a different id is 'allocated' each time for 303 in total. The pivot table is good but if you then filter the URL by dsa/architect_full.php you get 303 instances of the same page but different id. I think this is one of the issues, it found a URL then repeated it somehow in a random URL count manner. From the pivot each is technically unique, looks to me that the unique ids could be put in sequence which would suggest them being generated rather then being dumped there from elsewhere.

by rustyjames 15.07.15 1:25

The Internet Archive doesn't add parameters to the URLs or anything else that would generate them such as entering data into forms. Each of those URLs must have been found and followed by the crawler.

by Guest 15.07.15 10:06

Rustyjames, I don’t disagree that normaly the crawler only captures what’s there and in the codexgeo case these unique ids can be found as commonplace (so my suggestion of added ids was wrong!). What I can’t quite understand is that the high volume.

From the data round about the 30/04 (as its now been whooshed these are the closest) why would we suddenly find 303 references / different ids when other captures have found only one per timestamp?
i.e.

20070407132202 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
20070504045143 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]?

The maximum number of urls captured outwith 30/04 on a specific timestamp is 2.

An even more extreme example (and getting back to the specific thread subject) is the Ceop Report, there are 582 captures on 2070430115803 similar to the example below

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.](S(yvpw4f55fa5hn4eokdjjs0bf))/ceop_report.aspx and whilst it only appears once for ceop_report this identifier is part of a set containing 124 different urls i.e. news_items, training, press releases etc.

Using the news article for 05/11/07 as captured 20070430115803 it features as part of a set of data on 17 different occasions and once on its own. It could be argued that each has its’s own unique identifier but clearly this is the same url or perhaps it has been modified as part of a set 17 times (that seems unlikely


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

news_items/article_20070618_ceop.htm & news_items/article_20070719_ceop.htm
can be found 24 times each, and so on. I don’t think on this occasion we can conclude that Wayback did not generate anything.

by rustyjames 15.07.15 18:15

HKP wrote:
From the data round about the 30/04 (as its now been whooshed these are the closest) why would we suddenly find 303 references / different ids when other captures have found only one per timestamp?

If that reference to 303 is a count of the entries I put on pastebin, apologies but that was only a small set as there was too much data to post without a professional account. In actual fact less than 20 of the 16033 URLs did not match that pattern.

HKP wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.](S(yvpw4f55fa5hn4eokdjjs0bf))/ceop_report.aspx and whilst it only appears once for ceop_report this identifier is part of a set containing 124 different urls i.e. news_items, training, press releases etc.

Yes I must confess I've not figured out those URLs. The only thing I can think of is something like the output of a content management system (CMS).

by Verdi 16.07.15 0:07

The title of this thread..

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

74 pages later and still rolling on. Steve Marsden kicked off this revelation, I'm sure if he had any further news to offer it would have spread like a raging bush fire so why is he so quiet on the subject? Although it's clearly keeping the experts entertained, in my opinion it would be helpful for all to know what's going on in the real world.

by sar 16.07.15 11:26

Verdi wrote:The title of this thread..

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

74 pages later and still rolling on. Steve Marsden kicked off this revelation, I'm sure if he had any further news to offer it would have spread like a raging bush fire so why is he so quiet on the subject? Although it's clearly keeping the experts entertained, in my opinion it would be helpful for all to know what's going on in the real world.

...more like one hundred and seventy four pages!!!??? Anyway, good for sifting out disruptors thumbup

by whodunit 16.07.15 17:18

How easy it is to label all members who wish to discuss this issue as 'disruptors' who are 'out of touch with reality'.

That's not an obvious tactic or anything.

by **Jill Havern** 16.07.15 18:24

Verdi wrote:The title of this thread..

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

74 pages later and still rolling on. Steve Marsden kicked off this revelation, I'm sure if he had any further news to offer it would have spread like a raging bush fire so why is he so quiet on the subject? Although it's clearly keeping the experts entertained, in my opinion it would be helpful for all to know what's going on in the real world.

He'll be over later, he just PM'd me on facebook to say he needed his account reactivating.

by Verdi 16.07.15 23:32

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Verdi wrote:The title of this thread..

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

74 pages later and still rolling on. Steve Marsden kicked off this revelation, I'm sure if he had any further news to offer it would have spread like a raging bush fire so why is he so quiet on the subject? Although it's clearly keeping the experts entertained, in my opinion it would be helpful for all to know what's going on in the real world.
He'll be over later, he just PM'd me on facebook to say he needed his account reactivating.

Thanks for letting us know. I look forward to some rational explanation as to the current state of play. thumbup

by Nina 16.07.15 23:39

Verdi wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Verdi wrote:The title of this thread..

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

74 pages later and still rolling on. Steve Marsden kicked off this revelation, I'm sure if he had any further news to offer it would have spread like a raging bush fire so why is he so quiet on the subject? Although it's clearly keeping the experts entertained, in my opinion it would be helpful for all to know what's going on in the real world.
He'll be over later, he just PM'd me on facebook to say he needed his account reactivating.
Thanks for letting us know. I look forward to some rational explanation as to the current state of play.

Phew, that's a relief. pray2