Re: CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

Guest Wed 17 Jun 2015, 10:21 am

Freedom wrote:Just posted on the Go Fund Me page. Let's hope that the last poster can elaborate his or her comment somewhere.

£5
INCORRECT INFORMATION PREVIOUS POST BY 'I W '
0 mins ago
Please note the information in previous post re Wayback Machine is incorrect. It really should be removed if possible asap. Thank you
55£10
I W
2 hours ago
The truths is coming out :-) CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007 !!! Wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20070501000000*/http://ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html ...click on 30 April 2007 For justice!!!

**Freedom** Wed 17 Jun 2015, 10:24 am

Further post on the Go Fund Me page.

£5
INCORRECT INFORMATION POST BY 'I W'
3 mins ago
Omitted to add, re Wayback Machine, correct date is 10.05.2007 @ 20.16 hrs. Thank you

**Freedom** Wed 17 Jun 2015, 10:45 am

"I W" now wants to delete his or her post!

£5
I W
0 mins ago
Please delete my previous comment as it is incorrect!!!!! Sorry!!!!!!

chirpyinsect Wed 17 Jun 2015, 11:06 am

I see the ever so techno savvy TB is convinced Stevo is leading us all up the garden path. Stop press! Aquila agrees.

**Freedom** Wed 17 Jun 2015, 11:19 am

I will admit that I have my doubts too about this.

I wish that it could be proved conclusively that the date is correct. I have the feeling that this is simply too good to be true.

Were explanations ever found for the tribute pages that appeared for the Sandy Hook victims, dated prior to the incident happening?

Guest Wed 17 Jun 2015, 11:30 am

chirpyinsect wrote:I see the ever so techno savvy TB is convinced Stevo is leading us all up the garden path. Stop press! Aquila agrees.

So it's probably right enough, then! Razz

It will still need a bit more than a colourful infographic, taken from God knows where, to convince me.

Guest Wed 17 Jun 2015, 11:32 am

Freedom wrote:I will admit that I have my doubts too about this.

I wish that it could be proved conclusively that the date is correct. I have the feeling that this is simply too good to be true.

Were explanations ever found for the tribute pages that appeared for the Sandy Hook victims, dated prior to the incident happening?

In a way, it's not that important whether or not it is true. Doubts have been raised, they are out there, this is not going to lie down and die, it needs explaining one way or the other.

AndyB Wed 17 Jun 2015, 11:34 am

Freedom wrote:Were explanations ever found for the tribute pages that appeared for the Sandy Hook victims, dated prior to the incident happening?

And while we're at it was there ever an explanation for the BBC saying that WTC building 7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it came down

**Freedom** Wed 17 Jun 2015, 11:36 am

I don't need any convincing that 9/11 wasn't what we were told that it was, but that's another story!

Guest Wed 17 Jun 2015, 11:37 am

And neither was Lockerbie.

Guest Wed 17 Jun 2015, 11:37 am

£5
Staying Anon This Time
36 mins ago
I am staying anon this time as things are hotting up! Re: the 'IW' comment - seems correct to me so what's going on? Is the second 'IW', retracting the archived link to CEOP, the same person who posted the first comment? Just checked the link. The first dated 'snapshot' for MBM's disappearance on the CEOP website by this very large computerised archive is indeed the 30 April 2007 (time may be US at 11.58.03). As I understand it the archive automatically searches sites worldwide i.e. all carried out by a computer program not some fallible human . After the 30 April there are 2 more 'snapshots' of the CEOP page in May on the 13th and 22nd. I can see none for the 10 May and the calendar is clear - the snapshot dates are highlighted in light blue. The final snapshot date shown on the archive is 4 Sept 2009. I suspect the previous 2 comments refuting the evidence is a knee jerk panic reaction from some quarter. Please check the link for yourselves before it disappears into the ether. Seems really significant folks! This is what the archive states as part of its function: 'The Internet Archive is working to prevent the Internet - a new medium with major historical significance - and other "born-digital" materials from disappearing into the past. Collaborating with institutions including the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, we are working to preserve a record for generations to come.' Seems legit to me.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070501000000*/http://ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html

Note
This calendar view maps the number of times http://ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html was crawled by the Wayback Machine, not how many times the site was actually updated. More info in the FAQ.

AndyB Wed 17 Jun 2015, 11:40 am

candyfloss wrote:Denise Thomson ‏@Syn0nymph · 16 mins16 minutes ago
@ChallengeGovUK No mystery why date 30/4/07. Is purely down to how WB handled javascript and links issues #mccann pic.twitter.com/DBzO3uhboJ

Utter nonsense. The page itself is quite explicit about when it was archived (my emphasis):

Guest Wed 17 Jun 2015, 11:43 am

All this about the timestamp showing the earliest search, and not the latest - absolute rubbish! Even when Harvard referencing, you show your sources as "date LAST accessed", not "date FIRST accessed". If that were the case then we'd all still be sitting looking this - CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007 - Page 2 Google10

CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007 - Page 2 Google10

ETA I see Andy B beat me to it! Razz

Agree with you 100%, it's astonishing how many are taken in by some white writing on a big purple rectangle.

chirpyinsect Wed 17 Jun 2015, 11:43 am

Freedom wrote:I will admit that I have my doubts too about this.

I wish that it could be proved conclusively that the date is correct. I have the feeling that this is simply too good to be true.

Were explanations ever found for the tribute pages that appeared for the Sandy Hook victims, dated prior to the incident happening?

Other than the belief that the whole the thing was faked?

AndyB Wed 17 Jun 2015, 11:53 am

Resistor wrote:All this about the timestamp showing the earliest search, and not the latest - absolute rubbish!

Yes and the other point of course is that Way Back When doesn't archive things over a range of days. It crawls the web and archives what it finds at that point, recording the date and time as it does so. In this case 11:58:03 on 30/04/2007. (The 11:58:03 will be one of the American time zones)

Guest Wed 17 Jun 2015, 11:54 am

AndyB wrote:
Resistor wrote:All this about the timestamp showing the earliest search, and not the latest - absolute rubbish!
Yes and the other point of course is that Way Back When doesn't archive things over a range of days. It crawls the web and archives what it finds at that point, recording the date and time as it does so. In this case 11:58:03 on 30/04/2007. (The 11:58:03 will be one of the American time zones)

https://web.archive.org/web/20070501000000*/http://ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html

Note
This calendar view maps the number of times http://ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html was crawled by the Wayback Machine, not how many times the site was actually updated. More info in the FAQ.

AndyB Wed 17 Jun 2015, 12:04 pm

Helene wrote:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070501000000*/http://ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html

I've just noticed. The full hierarchic name of the page contains a date - the first of May:
web.archive.org/web/20070501000000*/http://ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html.

It looks like the snapshot was taken at 11:58:03 pm and written a couple of minutes later

Poe Wed 17 Jun 2015, 12:07 pm

AndyB wrote:
Helene wrote:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070501000000*/http://ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html
I've just noticed. The full hierarchic name of the page contains a date - the first of May:
web.archive.org/web/20070501000000*/http://ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html.

It looks like the snapshot was taken at 11:58:03 pm and written a couple of minutes later

The full address I get is: https://web.archive.org/web/20070430115803/http://www.ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html. Perhaps Helene was looking at a later page.

Guest Wed 17 Jun 2015, 12:08 pm

Just checked it using the direct link, it's still there and it's definitely April 30th.

CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007 - Page 2 Captur11

You'd have a hard time saving something that doesn't exist. Rolling Eyes

Andrew Wed 17 Jun 2015, 12:16 pm

Fascinating stuff.

Has Gamble piped up yet......

AndyB Wed 17 Jun 2015, 12:27 pm

Poe wrote:
AndyB wrote:
Helene wrote:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070501000000*/http://ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html
I've just noticed. The full hierarchic name of the page contains a date - the first of May:
web.archive.org/web/20070501000000*/http://ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html.

It looks like the snapshot was taken at 11:58:03 pm and written a couple of minutes later

The full address I get is: https://web.archive.org/web/20070430115803/http://www.ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html. Perhaps Helene was looking at a later page.

You're right. I was looking at the link that Helene provided but that takes you to the calendar page because there isn't an archive on 01/05/2007

costello Wed 17 Jun 2015, 12:38 pm

I'm intrigued with this information coming to light, it would explain a lot. Richard Hall has left a post on CMoMM it seems he's also interested.

Burst Wed 17 Jun 2015, 12:58 pm

As a n00b, I read about this very early this morning, and reading about it I understood this: The content of the page, as a pdf-image, dates as created on 10/05/2007.
But then still! The page itself dates 30/04/2007, and the url of the page is CEOP McCann, which shouldn't be possible.

Now, that would still be huge.

I could be wrong. Anyone else understands the same or different?

AndyB Wed 17 Jun 2015, 1:26 pm

Burst wrote:As a n00b, I read about this very early this morning, and reading about it I understood this: The content of the page, as a pdf-image, dates as created on 10/05/2007.
But then still! The page itself dates 30/04/2007, and the url of the page is CEOP McCann, which shouldn't be possible.

Pretty much. The page is how it was on 30/04/2007 when it was archived by Way Back When and it includes a link to a pdf file, which is the "help us find Madeleine" poster. It appears that the pdf was last updated, or archived on 08/07/2007 and clicking on the link takes you to the more recent version but the date of the poster is irrelevent . The key issue is that the CEOP website had a McCann folder on 30/04/2007 that talks about finding Madeleine McCann. There is little doubt that the archive was taken on 30/04/2007 because, not only is that when it claims it was taken (if you look at the bottom of the source code there is a comment to that effect), its been filed in a folder named after the date and time that it was taken. Like you say it shouldn't be possible for this page to have existed on the CEOP website when it did. How did CEOP know Madeleine was going to disappear three days before she did so?

Burst Wed 17 Jun 2015, 1:30 pm

AndyB wrote:
Burst wrote:As a n00b, I read about this very early this morning, and reading about it I understood this: The content of the page, as a pdf-image, dates as created on 10/05/2007.
But then still! The page itself dates 30/04/2007, and the url of the page is CEOP McCann, which shouldn't be possible.
Pretty much. The page is how it was on 30/04/2007 when it was archived by Way Back When and it includes a link to a pdf file, which is the "help us find Madeleine" poster. It appears that the pdf was last updated, or archived on 08/07/2007 and clicking on the link takes you to the more recent version but the date of the poster is irrelevent . The key issue is that the CEOP website had a McCann folder on 30/04/2007 that talks about finding Madeleine McCann. There is little doubt that the archive was taken on 30/04/2007 because, not only is that when it claims it was taken (if you look at the bottom of the source code there is a comment to that effect), its been filed in a folder named after the date and time that it was taken. Like you say it shouldn't be possible for this page to have existed on the CEOP website when it did. How did CEOP know Madeleine was going to disappear three days before she did so?

Quite. Thanks for helping me confirm my understanding.

Sponsored content