CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

All this technical stuff is beyond me I'll happily concede but the home office is and as been funding OG to the tune of around £11 million and counting,if there is a cover up this £11 million is wasted to have let something like this if true, slip by.

Resistor wrote:Now it turns out that Wayback have "got form".  Not because of dodgy time stamps, though.

https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/the-wayback-machine-is-now-useless-for-legal-issues.159396/

Interesting.

Shame Isabelle and Lizzie made contact with WBM so promptly - it gave WBM (or their paymasters) a chance to tamper with dates - but at least Isabelle and Lizzie got screenshots of what showed up initially. It remains to be seen whether its of any use to the PJ.

Sometimes its best not to let the enemy know what you know.

Here's a Twitlonger from Nikki Plummer which if nothing else give a probable reason for  debate.....


http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1smn3f5

Find Maddie McCann allegedly posted on CEOP on 30th April? #mccann 

---

Well I admit this looks worth exploring...

"Wayback Machine", from my limited understanding, does indeed log the 1st date a main page was posted. It seems to be an actual date & time log? Add on subsequent pages on the same main link, can also show the date of the main page post unless probed deeper on an individual page by page basis I think.

So, on initial inspection, ppl have seen that Maddie's disappearance may have been posted on the CEOP site from 30th April according to their gathering of info from Wayback.

Wayback has no agenda. It's a system that can only post what is literally evident if their site & system for internet data capture info is anything to go by.

However what if file names can be changed?
Just perhaps a missing child's template, already in existence, was then used for Maddie McCann after 30th April? Could someone for speed of communication used another suitable template & simply changed the file name & content to Maddie McCann?  

It's strange that the dates were so close 30th April file template used for a child that allegedly went missing several days later. But just perhaps this is what happened? 

I'm not excusing anyone here, but before anyone leaps it may be worth asking this question? Because if there's anything in this it's mind blowing. Likewise if there is any justified & realistic explanation for this critical date anomaly we need to explore it & understand it. I just don't think that we can assume before all avenues are explored.

If someone suitable tells me that a file name change is impossible & why then well at least then we wil know. Likewise if it is possible we will know that too. If there is the slightest chance that Wayback could have got the initial date incorrect of the 30th April for alerting to Maddie's disppearance we need to know if this is possible. Doesn't seem so from their website but we can't rule out anything with potentially such serious consequences.

Just my thoughts based on my novice & limited research today.  


Posted in reply on Textusa blogspot yesterday

So in a nutshell... 

Is the wayback correct or an error.. A McError maybe.

I'm not quite qualified to form an opinion to be honest.

Hideho had made an opinion 

Not sure myself.

No templates. The file name would have been mccann.html on 30 April. No changes. If it didn't exist with that name on 30 April, it could not have been crawled.

I blocked Nikki Plummer on Twitter because she kept repeating "information" that had zero relevance to this incident, then starting hurling insults because people (not just myself) wouldn't accept it. It was obvious that she had no understanding at all of how these things work, but as usual, those who shout the loudest are the ones who are believed in this whole sorry mess. She's now admitted that she is a novice with "limited research"; that's more than she was willing to say two days ago, I suppose.

We now have Pat Brown telling us that it's all "ridiculous" and "nonsense" based on nothing more than her own biased and uninformed opinion, and ridiculing people who try to point out otherwise.

I genuinely believe we have a smoking gun here. A real, live, indisputable, smoking gun. I could write pages on why this is, but there is no point; so many people seem determined to casually throw this bombshell away. I can only conclude that they don't like it because it might destroy their own, personal theories, and we can't have that, now can we. Because everyone has an ego that has to be stoked.

I will leave you with one thought. Nikki Plummer made a big song and dance two days ago about the bug fixes and the updates in the Wayback machine, trying to tell us the whole thing was flaky. (Actually considering the size of the code, the bug fixes were not that many, and they all looked reasonable to me. And not one of them related to timestamps.)

If there genuinely is a flaw in the timestamp mechanism (which I don't believe there can be), then we should see a major bug fix coming out shortly, shouldn't we? Because that is the core essence of their business - saving things as they are, on a specific date and time. And if there is no major bug fix or update, then the timing was right all along.

Resistor I hope you are right. I don't have any knowledge of Nikki and take what you say on board as I believe what your about. I thought it was an angle new to this and perhaps a valid reason for the 30th datestamp. Iam a computing novice and read any ideas with interest. .

Bampots wrote:Resistor I hope you are right. I don't have any knowledge of Nikki and take what you say on board as I believe what your about. I thought it was an angle new to this and perhaps a valid reason for the 30th datestamp. Iam a computing novice and read any ideas with interest.  .    

I admit to wondering myself if it was at all possible for a file to have been used that was already in existence, say for another child, then superceded by Madeleine's details but couldn't think why that would be. My thought then being surely a file used for another child would remain in the system to record the outcome of that case.
It would have been a bit akin to a GP using a deceased patient's folder to enter details of a new patient and scrubbing out the name on the front. Didn't make sense so I didn't even ask.
I put my faith in those who have a reputation to maintain in this who will be slaving away to make sure this is correct.
After all it is just as important to debunk this if not true to prevent speculation that plays into TM hands, as it is to prove it if true.
I hope with all my heart it can be proved categorically and the smirk is wiped off a certain person's face for good.

Resistor wrote:No templates.  The file name would have been mccann.html on 30 April.  No changes.  If it didn't exist with that name on 30 April, it could not have been crawled.

I blocked Nikki Plummer on Twitter because she kept repeating "information" that had zero relevance to this incident, then starting hurling insults because people (not just myself) wouldn't accept it.  It was obvious that she had no understanding at all of how these things work, but as usual, those who shout the loudest are the ones who are believed in this whole sorry mess.  She's now admitted that she is a novice with "limited research"; that's more than she was willing to say two days ago, I suppose.

We now have Pat Brown telling us that it's all "ridiculous" and "nonsense" based on nothing more than her own biased and uninformed opinion, and ridiculing people who try to point out otherwise.

I genuinely believe we have a smoking gun here.  A real, live, indisputable, smoking gun.  I could write pages on why this is, but there is no point; so many people seem determined to casually throw this bombshell away.  I can only conclude that they don't like it because it might destroy their own, personal theories, and we can't have that, now can we.  Because everyone has an ego that has to be stoked.

I will leave you with one thought.  Nikki Plummer made a big song and dance two days ago about the bug fixes and the updates in the Wayback machine, trying to tell us the whole thing was flaky.  (Actually considering the size of the code, the bug fixes were not that many, and they all looked reasonable to me.  And not one of them related to timestamps.)  

If there genuinely is a flaw in the timestamp mechanism (which I don't believe there can be), then we should see a major bug fix coming out shortly, shouldn't we?  Because that is the core essence of their business - saving things as they are, on a specific date and time.  And if there is no major bug fix or update, then the timing was right all along.

I agree with your analysis and, like you, I seriously doubt that there is an issue with timestamps being incorrectly assigned when the page was crawled. Nevertheless there is the anomaly of the home page that has the exact same date and time stamp and which has links to news articles dated October. Unless this anomaly can be explained then I’m forced to the conclusion that the time stamp is wrong, irrespective of what Wayback Machine have said.

So, how come the timestamp is wrong? Only Wayback can tell us for sure and I think that they’re unlikely to do so but it seems most likely to me that there has been some sort of intervention, probably to correct unrelated error, that has caused it. By way of example, I recently worked at a site where there was corruption in a small part of the data in the database. A batch program was written to fix the corruption, which was tested. The test results proved that, yes, after the program had finished, all the corruption was fixed so it was run in the live environment. Unfortunately, while it had indeed fixed the original corruption, it had also updated unintended parts of the database so that they were now corrupt.

The point is that it is possible for the date to be wrong for entirely innocent reasons that don’t involve a problem with date/time stamping at crawl time. I would love to be able to agree with you that there is a genuine smoking gun here, and that was what I initially thought, but  I cannot ignore the fact the anomalous links to future dated articles existed. Unless there is an explanation for them I'm afraid I can't agree.

Taking this thread off on a tangent:

Why has this suddenly appeared now? I may not have followed this case for as long as most of you but I do know that just about everything that surrounds this case happens for a reason. If someone somewhere wanted to ratchet up the pressure on the McCanns and/or Jim Gamble, judging by the shill meltdown on twitter, they certainly succeeded.

Just speculation on my part.

If it didn't exist with that name on it, then it couldn't have been crawled.

This sentence makes a lot of sense, thanks Resistor. Let's face it, if CEOP gives an excuse, who is going to believe it now? If way back gives a reason (other than the info is correct) who is gonna believe them now?
This is all just too scary, I don't think we'll ever have the answer until this case is done and dusted

Like I said, let's see if a major fix relating to timestamps is ever released. I personally am not expecting one.

Nevertheless there is the anomaly of the home page that has the exact same date and time stamp and which has links to news articles dated October.

Unfortunately by the time I got to looking at that, the page had been changed and I didn't see anything about October. I am not saying I disbelieve you, just that I didn't catch it in time to be able to look at the source. I'm pretty sure there must have been some sort of dynamic content in there, similar to the example I posted on page 5 of this thread. It is also possible that CEOP themselves requested that the page be changed, as website owners are apparently allowed to do that and Wayback will comply (although that seems a bit far fetched). It's probably a lot easier to explain that an incorrect timestamp.

I have a personal website on the internet.

Within that website I have a page which contains a short story I wrote. The short story was published in an anthology.

I have no current links to the short story or to the anthology on the website, because I'm in the process of updating and revamping it.

The short story and the anthology pages are still sitting on the server.

I googled my website and the short story.
Google returned a result. It was my short story, on my website, even though there are no links on my website pointing to that short story.

I rest my case.

dogs don't lie wrote:If it didn't exist with that name on it, then it couldn't have been crawled.

This sentence makes a lot of sense, thanks Resistor. Let's face it, if CEOP gives an excuse, who is going to believe it now? If way back gives a reason (other than the info is correct) who is gonna believe them now?
This is all just too scary, I don't think we'll ever have the answer until this case is done and dusted

I don't believe we will ever get an answer at all. The whole thing has made me very depressed. The sheer scale of it, the frustration of it, the heads in the sand and the egos/agendae of some of the biggest names in it. And at the bottom of it, poor wee Maddie. It is tragic and horrific in equal parts.

Resistor wrote:

Nevertheless there is the anomaly of the home page that has the exact same date and time stamp and which has links to news articles dated October.

Unfortunately by the time I got to looking at that, the page had been changed and I didn't see anything about October.  I am not saying I disbelieve you, just that I didn't catch it in time to be able to look at the source.  

That's very unfortunate because it would have made a lot more sense to you than it did to me.

Looking at this optimistically...
Suppose that OG has known about the CEOP April 30 page for a long time.
Suppose that they need something that will provide proof of wrongdoing.
Suppose that they casually dropped this info into a chat group and got people talking about it.
Suppose that they then watched, very closely, to see what would happen next.
Suppose that they monitored who contacted WBM to ask for the page to be "fixed".
Suppose that they now have the proof they were after.
I know, I'm a fantasist.
But still...

WBM is all for freedom of speech, however the Church of Scientology were able to flood the internet with their teachings. Once people became aware of what was going on the WBM, under pressure removed many articles relating to Scientology. They do get leaned on...

ETA...The lean on was from the CoS

canada12 wrote:Looking at this optimistically...
Suppose that OG has known about the CEOP April 30 page for a long time.
Suppose that they need something that will provide proof of wrongdoing.
Suppose that they casually dropped this info into a chat group and got people talking about it.
Suppose that they then watched, very closely, to see what would happen next.
Suppose that they monitored who contacted WBM to ask for the page to be "fixed".
Suppose that they now have the proof they were after.
I know, I'm a fantasist.
But still...

That occurred to me too. But it seems to good to be true.

Bubblewrapped wrote:WBM is all for freedom of speech, however the Church of Scientology were able to flood the internet with their teachings. Once people became aware of what was going on the WBM, under pressure removed many articles relating to Scientology. They do get leaned on...

ETA...The lean on was from the CoS

You`re right :-

From Wiki
"In September 2002, lawyers for Scientology contacted Internet Archive (archive.org), the administrators of the Wayback Machine and asserted copyright claims on certain materials archived as historical contents of the Operation Clambake site. In response, the Wayback Machine administration removed the archive of the entire Clambake site, initially posting a false claim that the site's author had requested its removal. This claim has been removed but (as of December 2013) the site still returns a "Blocked Site Error" from the Wayback archive.[71]"

............ and I believe Carter Ruck are the Church of Scientology`s lawyers - well they used to be.

Mimi wrote:

Bubblewrapped wrote:WBM is all for freedom of speech, however the Church of Scientology were able to flood the internet with their teachings. Once people became aware of what was going on the WBM, under pressure removed many articles relating to Scientology. They do get leaned on...

ETA...The lean on was from the CoS

You`re right :-

From Wiki
"In September 2002, lawyers for Scientology contacted Internet Archive (archive.org), the administrators of the Wayback Machine and asserted copyright claims on certain materials archived as historical contents of the Operation Clambake site. In response, the Wayback Machine administration removed the archive of the entire Clambake site, initially posting a false claim that the site's author had requested its removal. This claim has been removed but (as of December 2013) the site still returns a "Blocked Site Error" from the Wayback archive.[71]"

............ and I believe Carter Ruck are the Church of Scientology`s lawyers - well they used to be.

Well well well....Hmm, thankyou Mimi for the CR information involvement with the CoS. Interesting.

I must say, if it does turn out that the date of 30th April 2007 is right, it fits in very well with my theory of this all being linked to CEOP, Operation Ore and the entrapment of paedofiles. Just a theory though - nothing more.

I see Resistor has managed to do what no one else in history has been able to do. TB yesterday told us that Steveo  has been known to lead us up the garden path before but now thanks to people like Resistor he now believes this cannot be written off as a glitch.
I find it worth a mention that his attitude started to change when Rich Hall arrived to post his conclusions.

I don't think that Tony is likely to be influenced by anyone here!

If as you say his views changed when Rich D Hall started commenting, then he (RDH) is the probable source.

Freedom wrote:I don't think that Tony is likely to be influenced by anyone here!

If as you say his views changed when Rich D Hall started commenting, then he (RDH) is the probable source.

No he really did mention Resistor. Quote:
But the more I have read here - and in another place by a poster called 'Resistor' in particular - from those who seem to have the technical competence to comment, the more I am unpersuaded that this can be written off as a mere 'glitch'.