CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

I can't wait to hear the explanation of how an archive taken on July 31 2007 came to be dated by the software that took it as 30/04/2007. I wonder if we'll ever have it explained properly

I smell the whiff of McCscanigans.

Either that or archive .org has a bad flaw that could cost them dearly.

I'm now very interested in how this is explained.

candyfloss wrote:So a discrepancy they are looking into........






Denise Thomson ‏@Syn0nymph  · 6 mins6 minutes ago  
@amsterdamkush @annienonymouss @jontait42 They have confirmed that the archive timestamp for that page is actually 31/7/2007 #mccann

Methinks Christopher Butler has now been persuaded to change his mind - and backtrack that it was a mistake.

And - how will this affect previous judgements based on the accuracy of their archives?

Wipeout for them if found to be unreliable.

I don't believe this is wrong data - the latest outputs are surely a dizzy example of McCannfusion.

IMO

froggy wrote:Is it possible that CEOP already had an unnamed but dated HTML folder on their server which was later given the McCann label?

No. It doesn't work like that.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I smell the whiff of McCscanigans.

Either that or archive .org has a bad flaw that could cost them dearly.

I'm now very interested in how this is explained.

Having been through a load of posts in various places my take is this:
Lizzy Hideho Taylor, in her technical ignorance has convinced herself that its all a mistake

Hideho wrote:
I am only referring to the Wayback webpage. It is quite clear to me that it is an error. As I keep saying, if I'm right then we will have confirmation from Internet Archives that it will be acknowledged and rectified.

So being the proactive, investigative person that she is she emailed WBM to say "here's a mistake". The nice, but non-technical Chris Butler replies saying, "yes, if like you say, MM disappeared on 03/07/2007 then we've clearly got the date wrong".

I expect WBM will go very quiet when it its realised that Chris Butler has just fundamentally undermined their entire credibility

It's not an error, or a mistake. I have tried to point this out all evening, but I am probably just wasting my time. "Appears to be" and "is" are two completely different things. But hey, what do I know.

AndyB wrote:I can't wait to hear the explanation of how an archive taken on July 31 2007 came to be dated by the software that took it as 30/04/2007. I wonder if we'll ever have it explained properly

He said "appears to be". He didn't say "it is". Maybe he doesn't understand how embedded Javascript works, either.

Resistor wrote:It's not an error, or a mistake.  I have tried to point this out all evening, but I am probably just wasting my time.  "Appears to be" and "is" are two completely different things.  But hey, what do I know.

Quite a lot actually.

It seems that Chris Butler of WBM is saying that the 30/04/2007 date is (not appears to be) wrong. I agree with you but unless you're in IT its difficult to be convinced by what is perfectly obvious to those that are

Not wasting your time at all, Resistor. I've listened and taken on board your knowledge, and thank you.

Funny how the undermining is starting to take place now, after time has been taken by the, erm, interested parties to digest the situation and start chucking mud. The accuracy of the Wayback machine has been so reliable it is regularly used in legal cases.... and then came the gambolling McCanns...

Can they afford to lose that reputation and the consequences of the inevitable legal backlash in other cases where their evidence has been used, for the sole reason of supporting the McCann fairytale? If this is proven to be the case, we know the cover-up exists and powerful backing is again in force.

All my supposition and belief, not fact.

Hi folks, re-registered for this 'event' only so that I can clear up a few things that I happen to have experience with.

Resistor - can you please tell me whether the dynamic content in the CEOP home page was delivered server-side or client-side. Your example of a date that reflects the current time doesn't follow. Yes, a date can easily be updated via Javascript. However, to display dynamic content such as news headlines then you need to get this information from the server, rather than an in-memory variable in the client. There are a few ways of doing this:

1. Server-side delivery, whereby the HTML is built dynamically by the web server. Common technologies for this are PHP, ASP and Javascript.

2. Queries from the client, via AJAX.

Can you tell me what technology was used to build the news items on the home-page please?

For starters, it's not the CEOP home page that we are discussing here. It is a sub-page. One that was crawled, and found, and archived, on 30 April 2007. Unless the server clock at Wayback was wrong, and let's face it, that is highly unlikely.

Great to see you back WLBTS - hope you computer techies can clear this up as I know it`s your field of work.

Resistor wrote:For starters, it's not the CEOP home page that we are discussing here.  It is a sub-page.  One that was crawled, and found, and archived, on 30 April 2007.  Unless the server clock at Wayback was wrong, and let's face it, that is highly unlikely.

The existence of a page that appears to have been crawled on 30 April 2007 that includes news headlines from the future has to be reconciled, especially when the crawl date is the same as that of the mccann page under question.

I've inspected the HTML and javascript that forms the CEOP home page.  The 'latest news' section was either built server-side, or was stored as such on the server.  Either way it makes no difference.  I don't see any AJAX calls to acquire the content dynamically.  Therefore the 'latest news' headlines were built into the HTML that was delivered to the crawler at the time of the crawl.


As an aside, I'm not saying that the crawl dates are conclusively wrong.  I'm interested in the evidence that we currently have, and if we're going to make vastly important claims then we have to be correct.

WLBTS wrote:

Resistor wrote:For starters, it's not the CEOP home page that we are discussing here.  It is a sub-page.  One that was crawled, and found, and archived, on 30 April 2007.  Unless the server clock at Wayback was wrong, and let's face it, that is highly unlikely.

The existence of a page that appears to have been crawled on 30 April 2007 that includes news headlines from the future has to reconciled, especially when the crawl date is the same as that of the mccann page under question.

I've inspected that HTML and javascript that forms the CEOP home page.  The 'latest news' section was either built server-side, or was stored as such on the server.  Either way it makes no difference.  I don't see any AJAX calls to acquire the content dynamically.  Therefore the 'latest news' headlines were built into the HTML that was delivered to the crawler at the time of the crawl.


As an aside, I'm not saying that the crawl dates are conclusively wrong.  I'm interested in the evidence that we currently have.

Eh?? It's all way over my head, but it is good to see you back WLBTS, and I hope you stay with us and keep posting after the 'event'

candyfloss wrote:
Eh??     It's all way over my head, but it is good to see you back WLBTS, and I hope you stay with us and keep posting  after the 'event'

Sorry CF, you know what for ;-)

WLBTS wrote:

candyfloss wrote:
Eh??     It's all way over my head, but it is good to see you back WLBTS, and I hope you stay with us and keep posting  after the 'event'

Sorry CF, you know what for ;-)

No problem.

WLBTS wrote:

Resistor wrote:For starters, it's not the CEOP home page that we are discussing here.  It is a sub-page.  One that was crawled, and found, and archived, on 30 April 2007.  Unless the server clock at Wayback was wrong, and let's face it, that is highly unlikely.

The existence of a page that appears to have been crawled on 30 April 2007 that includes news headlines from the future has to be reconciled, especially when the crawl date is the same as that of the mccann page under question.

I've inspected the HTML and javascript that forms the CEOP home page.  The 'latest news' section was either built server-side, or was stored as such on the server.  Either way it makes no difference.  I don't see any AJAX calls to acquire the content dynamically.  Therefore the 'latest news' headlines were built into the HTML that was delivered to the crawler at the time of the crawl.


As an aside, I'm not saying that the crawl dates are conclusively wrong.  I'm interested in the evidence that we currently have, and if we're going to make vastly important claims then we have to be correct.

It's late, and I have to be up early in the morning, so I really cannot stay up and discuss it much more. But I was thinking anchors leading to ASP pages. That would give you pages that appear to change in the middle. What is completely non-negotiable for me is the timestamp and the URL. I think someone created that page on a server but it wasn't "live"; the webcrawler found it anyway. It then begs the question - how did someone at CEOP know that they would need an HTML page on the 30th April, 3 days before Maddie went "missing".

So the dogs are 100% accurate in every single case apart from the McCanns, when they suddenly become "incredibly unreliable".

Wayback is 100% accurate in every single court case apart from the McCanns, when suddenly "there's an error".

Anybody else see a pattern emerging here?

BTW dogs don't lie. Neither do bots.

Resistor wrote:So the dogs are 100% accurate in every single case apart from the McCanns, when they suddenly become "incredibly unreliable".

Wayback is 100% accurate in every single court case apart from the McCanns, when suddenly "there's an error".

Anybody else see a pattern emerging here?

BTW dogs don't lie.  Neither do bots.

Ha, I can understand that You have a point resistor.

Resistor wrote:
It's late, and I have to be up early in the morning, so I really cannot stay up and discuss it much more.  But I was thinking anchors leading to ASP pages.  That would give you pages that appear to change in the middle.  What is completely non-negotiable for me is the timestamp and the URL.  I think someone created that page on a server but it wasn't "live"; the webcrawler found it anyway.  It then begs the question - how did someone at CEOP know that they would need an HTML page on the 30th April, 3 days before Maddie went "missing".  

No, the latest news headlines are part of the HTML for the home-page.  Therefore the HTML was built server-side, or simply existed complete on the server.

This is easy for a techie to disprove.  Simply point out where in the HTML/JS the client-side request of the latest news is done.

So, if the HTML was built server-side:

- Crawler does HTTP request for the home page URL on 30 April 2007 (apparently)
- Web server that deals with request supplies HTML as a response, complete with latest news from October 2007, even though this response is being created on 30 April 2007.

That does not add up, and it is right to query it.  If it were not for the existence of the latest news that shouldn't be there, I would be right alongside you in the belief that the crawl date is correct.

Take a look at this version of the home-page, crawled on 13th October 2007.

https://web.archive.org/web/20071013034014/http://www.ceop.gov.uk/index.asp

Compare it to the version which was apparently crawled on 30th April 2007.  It is nearly the same, although all the pages in between were dominated with stuff about Maddie and largely different in content to the two 'book-ends' in April and October.

13th October 2007:

Latest news: 02 October 2007, 01 October 2007, 31 August 2007

30th April 2007:

Latest news: 23 October 2007, 02 October 2007, 01 October 2007.

To me, the version apparently crawled on 30th April 2007 looks more likely to have been crawled in late October 2007, from the 23rd onwards.

--------

Additionally, look at some of the older pages that also have 'latest news', and notice the pattern:

8 April 2007 : 2 April 2007, 30 March 2007, 19 March 2007, 5 March 2007, 20 Feb 2007.
5 March 2007: 20 Feb 2007, 6 Feb 2007 (x2), 2 Feb 2007, 18 Jan 2007, 29 Dec 2006.
20 Feb 2007: 6 Feb 2007 (x2), 2 Feb 2007, 18 Jan 2007, 29 Dec 2006, 11 Dec 2006.

What does the pattern show?  That all of the latest news dates are dated prior to the crawl date.  From what I can tell so far, the only page that breaks the pattern is the one apparently crawled 30th April 2007.  So either that page is an exception to all others, or the crawl date is quite simply wrong and is more likely to have been late October 2007 or afterwards.

Why has this information come out today of all days(Kate's final day of her bike ride) no fanfare that I can see in the msm like it was in 2007 and the years beyond,makes me wonder if the s@it is about to hit the fan about the McCann's on social media but not on the main stream media which they still control via lawyers.all imo of course.

Well I spent quite some time late last night reading up on javascript and html etc.

I came to an interesting conclusion... 

I haven't a clue and still non the wiser about it all.

Nice to see you pop in Wlbts.

Look forward to reading some more technical talk on it and see what other revelations are in store today.

RDH is adamant this page was created on the 30th April 07.
Me, I haven't a clue!