CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

The power to cover up history is the power to change it...

froggy wrote:I have no technical knowledge, but thought that the dates of the pages didn't matter, it was the creation date of the 'envelope' containing them that was important.

That's correct.  Now there are claims that "the date is wrong".  Nobody has explained HOW the date has come to be "wrong" though.  And all these "explanations" have come from an "office manager", not an engineer or technical expert.  Draw your own conclusions.

Bubblewrapped wrote:The power to cover up history is the power to change it...

And I guess the power to predict history 6 months before it happens ;-)

WLBTS wrote:

Bubblewrapped wrote:The power to cover up history is the power to change it...

And I guess the power to predict history 6 months before it happens ;-)

In this case...My answer is a very big YES

WLBTS wrote:So the general feeling is that Jim Gamble can accurately predict news stories six months before they happen?

I just looked at the CEOP page for April (the home page) and I can't see anything about October. Where is everyone getting this from?

Resistor wrote:

WLBTS wrote:So the general feeling is that Jim Gamble can accurately predict news stories six months before they happen?

I just looked at the CEOP page for April (the home page) and I can't see anything about October.  Where is everyone getting this from?  

They have removed the offending page now, along with the mccann page.  It was there before, I'm sure others can confirm that.  It was referred to from the first page of this thread, and I saw it with my own eyes, including the source.

ETA - you can still see the trace of it on the index (represented on the calendar page). There is an entry with the same timestamp as the mccann page (30 April 2007), but when you click on that now you are redirected to the closest page chronologically, which is the 12th May page. According to WBM the entries won't disappear from the index until they re-index.

Yep. I saw it too

Surely, if the database can be altered for McCann CEOP pages, then ANY page can be altered, thereby invalidating the whole thing.

Wouldn't there be a way to check if something had been altered, as with Dr Shipman falsifying his patients' medical histories?

froggy wrote:Surely, if the database can be altered for McCann CEOP pages, then ANY page can be altered, thereby invalidating the whole thing.

How does altering a database because of bad data invalidate the whole thing? It improves integrity if anything.

WLBTS wrote:

froggy wrote:Surely, if the database can be altered for McCann CEOP pages, then ANY page can be altered, thereby invalidating the whole thing.

How does altering a database because of bad data invalidate the whole thing?  It improves integrity if anything.

Because if this data can be altered, then any data can be altered and everything potentially becomes suspect. That is how I see it, anyway.

Is the integrity of the whole archiving system not now in question given that court cases have used their info. etc.

froggy wrote:
Because if this data can be altered, then any data can be altered and everything potentially  becomes suspect. That is how I see it, anyway.

Any data *can* be altered, it doesn't invalidate anything.

Take a look at OpenWayback's release notes, in particular the bug-fixes.  Software is almost never perfect.

https://github.com/iipc/openwayback/wiki/Release-notes

Whilst not wishing to goad the debate it's strange that the last photo wasn't photoshopped and this webpage archive (both potentially huge evidence) are nothing to see it's all the technologies fault, according to some.

WLBTS wrote:

froggy wrote:
Because if this data can be altered, then any data can be altered and everything potentially  becomes suspect. That is how I see it, anyway.

Any data *can* be altered, it doesn't invalidate anything.

Take a look at OpenWayback's release notes, in particular the bug-fixes.  Software is almost never perfect.

https://github.com/iipc/openwayback/wiki/Release-notes

I'll let others argue that point , as I don't feel technically competent to do so.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Is the integrity of the whole archiving system not now in question given that court cases have used their info. etc.

Yes, it does.

There have been many cases - usually involving patents and copyrights - where the ownership of some sort of intellectual property has been decided on the basis of Wayback being used as part of the evidence.

Now all it takes is some smart lawyer to come along and say, well wait a wee minute, the timestamps of the sites in question are not reliable; Wayback said so. So the whole judgement is flawed. It has relied on evidence that has now proved to be unstable. We want the case re-opened.

The implications of this are absolutely huge. I don't think the office manager of Wayback has a clue what he has done.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Whilst not wishing to goad the debate it's strange that the last photo wasn't photoshopped and this webpage archive (both potentially huge evidence) are nothing to see it's all the technologies fault, according to some.

Well, you must be talking about me surely, as I've held that the last photo wasn't photoshopped and I seem to be a lone voice here.

And I'm not rising to it.

froggy wrote:

WLBTS wrote:

froggy wrote:Surely, if the database can be altered for McCann CEOP pages, then ANY page can be altered, thereby invalidating the whole thing.

How does altering a database because of bad data invalidate the whole thing?  It improves integrity if anything.

Because if this data can be altered, then any data can be altered and everything potentially  becomes suspect. That is how I see it, anyway.

That is correct, they have altered an audit trail, in my professional opinion that constitutes fraud.

WLBTS wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Whilst not wishing to goad the debate it's strange that the last photo wasn't photoshopped and this webpage archive (both potentially huge evidence) are nothing to see it's all the technologies fault, according to some.

Well, you must be talking about me surely, as I've held that the last photo wasn't photoshopped and I seem to be a lone voice here.

And I'm not rising to it.

You are not the lone voice IIRC didn't PeterMac and TB have it checked out by independent experts and they came to the conclusion that is wasn't.... someone please correct me if I am wrong.

IMO however which way you look at this, it's serious matter and carries quite some implications.
Whether the date was correct - which is an enormous impact on the McC case - or whether it was wrong - which has enormous impact on previous and future court cases, where it has been or will be used in evidence.

PM and TB thought that only the date had been changed from 29th April to 3rd May.

I must admit that doesn't resolve all my queries surrounding this photo but that's another story.

Considering their modus operandi surely having the correct date (the absolute key feature) is paramount, I see no bug fixes (as above) which state to fix wrong dates! Their reputation would be in tatters

candyfloss wrote:

WLBTS wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Whilst not wishing to goad the debate it's strange that the last photo wasn't photoshopped and this webpage archive (both potentially huge evidence) are nothing to see it's all the technologies fault, according to some.

Well, you must be talking about me surely, as I've held that the last photo wasn't photoshopped and I seem to be a lone voice here.

And I'm not rising to it.

You are not the lone voice IIRC didn't PeterMac and TB have it checked out by independent experts and they came to the conclusion that is wasn't.... someone please correct me if I am wrong.

That wasn't the point

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Considering their modus operandi surely having the correct date (the absolute key feature) is paramount, I see no bug fixes (as above) which state to fix wrong dates! Their reputation would be in tatters

It's in tatters either way now. Either they have deliberately altered an audit trail, or their evidence is unreliable. It will be interesting to see which it is.

WLBTS wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Whilst not wishing to goad the debate it's strange that the last photo wasn't photoshopped and this webpage archive (both potentially huge evidence) are nothing to see it's all the technologies fault, according to some.

Well, you must be talking about me surely, as I've held that the last photo wasn't photoshopped and I seem to be a lone voice here.

And I'm not rising to it.

I agree with you too on both the last photo and this, so definitely not a lone voice WLBTS.
Welcome back