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

by Dee Coy 27.06.15 10:57

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 11:20

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 image.]

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 11:20

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 11:24

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

by Syn 27.06.15 11:29

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 11:31

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 11:39

@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 11:41

Lol, Jean.

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

by Syn 27.06.15 11:49

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 11:49

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 11:53

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 11:57

@syn ty for the clear, percise and reasonable explaination

by Syn 27.06.15 12:00

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 image.]

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 12:00

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

Very welcome :)

by jack dexter 27.06.15 12:12

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 image.]

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.

by Dee Coy 27.06.15 12:18

@Syn.

More waffle from you. Inaccurate and designed to confuse?

I'd simply refer you to Whodunnit's clear and concise posts at 6.24pm, 7.17pm and 9.24pm last night:

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

And also to canada12's excellent contribution at 4.41pm yesterday:

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

by Syn 27.06.15 12:43

Dee Coy wrote:@Syn.

More waffle from you. Inaccurate and designed to confuse?

I'd simply refer you to Whodunnit's clear and concise posts at 6.24pm, 7.17pm and 9.24pm last night:

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

And also to canada12's excellent contribution at 4.41pm yesterday:

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

Nope not waffle, clear evidence of a wayback screwup. If you don't understand or don't want to see that the evidence is there, that is up to you. I am simply trying to stop people making fools of themselves over this.

Why would I deliberately confuse? I am a staunch anti (hate that word and prefer pro Madeleine' and have no agenda other than the truth and there is no truth in a CEOP premeditated plot in this case.

If you want to see where I stand re other McCann related subjects, have a peek at my twitter I am @Syn0nymph

Here are just some of my posts re the McCann debacle.

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

My Greptweet [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Ignore the last few days worth as it has primarily been in relation to the 30/4 issue)

I am also a regular poster on MaddieCaseFiles as Syn

by Liz Eagles 27.06.15 13:13

Firstly, it's a debate hosted by CMoMM with guest participation so hats off to CMoMM.

There are tecchies who wish to discuss their opinion/findings.

There is obvious disagreement/argument between tecchies.

This has now transcended to criticising the debating skill of particular tecchies and doubts cast upon whether they have an agenda. A large part of this criticism does not come from members of CMoMM but from another place who are lapping it up and offering up benign, unhelpful and pointless commentary. There is no need to comment on this debate. The forum is open to anyone wishing to participate.

There are non-tecchie ordinary folk who haven't a clue what any of it is about (I'm in that category).

There are non-tecchies such as Pat Brown who wants to hit her head on her desk. She's berrated for her opinion.

There are non-tecchies such as Blacksmith and PeterMac who have an opinion and others are clutching onto and supporting that.

The fact remains there is no proof yet. Yet is a good word.

Stop the bitching is what I think. It's a debate.

Stop wishing for something to 'fit' without proof.

Just my opinion.

by **PeterMac** 27.06.15 14:24

aquila wrote:
There are non-tecchies such as . . . PeterMac who have an opinion and others are clutching onto and supporting that.

I don't think I do.
I don't know enough about it, and haven't seen enough evidence to form even a tentative opinion.

What I do know is that this is not going to go away until it is solved,
but I also know that arguing without providing referenced evidence, and simply e-shouting or saying "FACT", or "Do you agree" doesn't take us any further.

by Liz Eagles 27.06.15 14:56

PeterMac wrote:
aquila wrote:
There are non-tecchies such as . . . PeterMac who have an opinion and others are clutching onto and supporting that.
I don't think I do.
I don't know enough about it, and haven't seen enough evidence to form even a tentative opinion.

What I do know is that this is not going to go away until it is solved,
but I also know that arguing without providing referenced evidence, and simply e-shouting or saying "FACT", or "Do you agree" doesn't take us any further.

[Unwarranted comments about another member deleted - Mod]

[My opinion] is...let the tecchies fight it out. It might come to something. It might come to nothing. I haven't changed my original opinion of it's a load of hogwash but that's my opinion based on nothing really than gut instinct. No-one will be swayed by my opinion.

by **PeterMac** 27.06.15 15:40

I was tempted to respond, but I think you have illustrated everything I would have said perfectly.

by HKP 27.06.15 15:52

@aquila. Do you really think this thread is the place to be questioning PM (questioning him even in the first instance is IMO ridiculous). And just stirring between forums is not helpful in trying to find out if WBM has captured something that could turn out to be very important.

by Liz Eagles 27.06.15 15:54

HKP wrote:@aquila. Do you really think this thread is the place to be questioning PM (questioning him even in the first instance is IMO ridiculous). And just stirring between forums is not helpful in trying to find out if WBM has captured something that could turn out to be very important.

Let the debate continue forthwith and without interruption.

by jeanmonroe 27.06.15 15:54

"it wouldn't matter if you said the Pope wore stockings, suspenders and ate children for breakfast, lunch and dinner;"
-------------------------------

It is not 'true' the Catholic Church have launched an urgent 'inquiry' to find the 'mole' that 'leaked' this.

Anyway, it's not 'true'. MY 'mole' in the Vactican, tells me, the Pope is on a diet, and only 'eats' children 'for lunch and dinner' these days.

That's another 'myth' the McCann's and the CC can 'scare' the kid's with!

"Behave yourself, and believe everything we tell you, or the 'big boss' will 'eat ya'...... for dinner!"

by Guest 27.06.15 16:08

aquila wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
aquila wrote:...

Mine is...let the tecchies fight it out. It might come to something. It might come to nothing. I haven't changed my original opinion of it's a load of hogwash but that's my opinion based on nothing really than gut instinct. No-one will be swayed by my opinion.

You don't need to let the techies fight it out.

Use the WM yourself and from around mid October 2007, the ceop trail is corrupt. It corrects itself when CEOP went from .gov.uk to .police.uk. (Sep 2010).

Use screenshots.com to check its screen captures for the same period. They are all fine.

So once upon a time, WM had correct info for CEOP, now that data has been corrupted.

It is as simple as that.

My thanks to Bluebag and Syn for persevering.

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