CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

Gosh, that is praise indeed from an unlikely source. 

As for me, I don't understand anything about the technical issues involved here so can't comment.

Verry interesting what RDH just wrote!!!

Helene wrote:Verry interesting what RDH just wrote!!!

Yes and now when you click on the link for the archived page you get the capture dates. 30 April is there and hovering on it shows 1 snapshot  30 Apr 07 at 11.58.03 but opening it jumps to the page for 27 Apr. There is also a snapshot of 27 Apr shown separately showing the same page as 30 Apr when opened. Nothing about M on either.
Yesterday it was showing 13 May. Someone is panicking.

Helene wrote:Verry interesting what RDH just wrote!!!

Yes, I'd forgotten about the comment in the html that says it was archived on 30/04/2007 at 11:58:03. That does rather undermine my theory that the date and time are wrong because of someone trying to fix another unrelated problem. I'd be interested in hearing views on how that could have happened from people more familiar with the technology than I am - If the date is incorrect as a result of a fix gone wrong, I would expect the comment to remain unchanged and still contain the original archive date.

I've just had another look at the copy of the page that I took yesterday and it also has these variables in it, which further suggest that it really was archived on 30/04/2007:
var displayDay = "30";
var displayMonth = "Apr";
var displayYear = "2007";

I understand WLBTS said that all the contents must have been there by the crawl, so the news shown of later is strong evidence the crawl is wrong. But if the contents weren't there by the crawl per se, the url naming McCann at 30/04/2007 is valid, and he has no point.

Now, can someone who really understands, explain if it is possible that the contents of the website that was crawled wouldn't necessarily have been there by the crawl?
If possible, it seems highly likely to me that the crawl-date with the url is real.

This may have been posted further up the thread, but it is moving so rapidly . . .

http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V11I1/JTHTLv11i1_Andersen.PDF
at page 256

B. Screen Shots as Evidence
1. Federal Rules of Evidence
The main evidentiary issues that arise when submitting screen shots into evidence relate to hearsay and authentication. Hearsay is defined as a statement that “the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing” and “a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.”34 An archived screen shot from the Wayback Machine is a written assertion of what a web page looked like on the date provided. However, there are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay that may cover this situation.

It is a long read, and mostly concerns itself with US hearsay rule of evidence.  In other word, not with the substantive issue of whether it is correct or not.

If you use the 'find' function and put in date, it is most instructive.
So far as I can see there has never been a successful challenge to the date. There are all sorts of issues which ACCEPT the date, and therefore find that the case is proven, or not proven on that basis  (for example the website was not opened until some time after the alleged breach of copyright . . .)

Watch with interest.
Another formal letter has been sent to the WayBack people asking politely for confirmation
The next step might be to JG or to CEOP now he has gone.

Just looking in, I am really quite shocked that I have been mentioned in dispatches

For the date of the crawl to have been wrong, the server clock on WB server would have to have been wrong. That is extremely unlikely, because server timers pick up their time from official sources, such as MSF in Cumbria. It's referred to as an ITS (Internet Time Service).

In turn, the crawler software uses the server clock to timestamp things. The timestamp is therefore the date/time of the server where the page is cached (stored) - not the time on the server where the page is held. So if a page is held on a page in the US, but the crawler is operating from the UK, the timestamp will be in GMT (or BST, as the case may be).

So for a "glitch" in the time, the actual server itself would have to be wrongly set, and that means all the other pages cached on 30 April will be wrongly timestamped as well.

The three variables that Andrew has asked about look like Javascript variables that are just used for displaying things on the page. They are a dynamic content that is embedded into the HTML, so they can change but the HTML around it does not, exactly like a dynamic news feed on a page. Where do the values for these variables come from? The timestamp as going by the server clock. Unless someone has specifically gone in and manually changed them. But there is no reason to do that - and why, especially, on one small page out of over three petabytes of archive.

So maybe it is a "recycled" page with a different name? No. That is not possible. If the date of the crawl is correct, i.e. 30 April 2007, then a page called mccann.html must have existed at that point in time, in order to be found and cached. There is no chance that it could have been called foxy.html or foobar.html or qwerty.html and later renamed. Because then it would have been cached as foxy.html or whatever.

How was this found out? I have no idea. I cannot imagine the incredible odds of this happening. There are no hyperlinks to advertise it's presence, it was just sitting about loose on a server, completely unconnected to anything else, but the robot found it and cached it, exactly as it was designed to do. Like dogs, bots don't lie. They are tools, they don't have any subjective judgement, they do exactly as they are programmed to do, and they don't make mistakes.

An average simple little HTML page, even allowing for pictures, is about 1/2 a megabyte. There are 1099511627776 megabytes in a petabyte, and Wayback holds over 3 pb of information (and rising). So you can see the incredible odds of this ever coming to light at all. I would love to know who found it, and in what circumstances - and please can I have six numbers for this week's Lotto.

@Resistor Good post. Please never shut up.

Resistor.
Brilliant work, of which I only pretend to understand a tenth.
to quote again from the PDF file mentioned previously.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the most important lesson the Wayback Machine provides is that Internet content is easily copied and stored for future use. Such use may be legally adverse to a website owner but, by requiring legal review of website content, this risk may be mitigated. However, the use of such archived images may also be used positively to the benefit of the website owner by using the Internet Archive’s archive service to monitor its own intellectual property. As the majority of federal courts admit such evidence with reasonable authentication requirements, a website owner can never be too aware of its options.

Well quite.

TY Burst. TBH I am finding this a wee bit embarrassing. I'm not a genius and I often get things wrong, but I am 100% sure about this, passionately so. I have a background in both hardware and software so I am in quite a lucky position to see exactly how it all comes together.

I've just got a wee bit peed off over the past couple of days with a load of screeching women (usually), ridiculing and insulting me because they think they know it all, having read some stuff on Google that they have then misinterpreted completely. So if I have seemed a bit short with the good people on here, I apologise.

I think I will now go back to page 5 and see what my old home looks like at ten to six on a Friday night, that will cheer me up a bit

Great stuff Resistor.

Hopefully this house of McCards will finally come crashing down.

Very interesting times coming up.

It was Stevo who found it - the author of The Faked Abduction.

Cribbed from CMoMM

In answer to a request from Jill Stevo replied :-

"I asked Stevo about this yesterday and he sent me this message:

"Hi Jill, I was actually looking into CEOP. I've used the Wayback Machine since about 2000. I routinely look into it but just stumbled across the CEOP April 30 thing while looking for something else to do with SOCA."

I would urge caution . The news from Portugal is not good. .It cannot be used by Amaral and the PJ.. .I am gutted

I will update you when I have it in writing

Magnum wrote:I would urge caution . The news from Portugal is not good. .It cannot be used by Amaral and the PJ.. .I am gutted

I will update you when I have it in writing  

Yeah....Because the full hoax amongst the whole lot of them is being exposed.

Ah! That would be right enough then. Stevo has done lots of research, some of it sound, and some of it a wee bit flaky (IMO). But at least on this occasion, nobody can accuse him of being unreliable. Because until two nights ago, it was there for anyone to go and look for themselves, at the primary source, and I should imagine quite a few did.

Magnum wrote:I would urge caution . The news from Portugal is not good. .It cannot be used by Amaral and the PJ.. .I am gutted

I will update you when I have it in writing  

Not in the appeal, no; no matter how explosive, it wouldn't be relevant. But that's not to say it cannot be used in a future case - a criminal one in the UK, for example.

Things might have moved on long before the appeal gets to be heard.

Resistor, I have to be honest here I don't understand anything IT technical, and still haven't got a clue. What I must applaud is your determination to prove your point and kudos to you. I have previously stated I am of the opinion this sorrowful saga was pre-planned, still am. I was intrigued with Canada12's post last night, if you have the time can you explain the one and two photograph issue of Madeleine.

Resistor wrote:

Magnum wrote:I would urge caution . The news from Portugal is not good. .It cannot be used by Amaral and the PJ.. .I am gutted

I will update you when I have it in writing  

Not in the appeal, no; no matter how explosive, it wouldn't be relevant.  But that's not to say it cannot be used in a future case - a criminal one in the UK, for example.

I have read your posts with great interest Resistor. .but this cannot be used in any case. .I will have confirmation soon. .sadly

costello wrote:Resistor, I have to be honest here I don't understand anything IT technical, and still haven't got a clue. What I must applaud is your determination to prove your point and kudos to you. I have previously stated I am of the opinion this sorrowful saga was pre-planned, still am. I was intrigued with Canada12's post last night, if you have the time can you explain the one and two photograph issue of Madeleine.

Thanks Costello

Here's my question:

Reply with quote

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

Post canada12 Yesterday at 10:33 am
I've just posted an interesting query over on the other chat group.

The original screenshot that we saw of April 30 apparently showed the page as it was "captured" on April 30. It showed ONE PHOTO of Madeleine.

Here it is below:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=646163802184537&set=gm.917000191695416&type=1&theater

We've now been told that this was an "error" and that it should have been a different date, after May 7.
The only trouble is, if you go to the link now, there are TWO PHOTOS of Madeleine on the page:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070513020901/http://www.ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html

So if the original April 30 link above was incorrect... where did the second photo of Madeleine go?
On what date was the second photo of Madeleine added?
Why doesn't the April 30 link show two photographs?
Shouldn't the new link only show one photo of Madeleine, if it's the April 30th link? Why is it showing two photos?

Magnum wrote:I would urge caution . The news from Portugal is not good. .It cannot be used by Amaral and the PJ.. .I am gutted

I will update you when I have it in writing  

Yourself and a poster on cmomm are both stating very similar, is it possible you have the same source. A further explanation of why this new evidence can't be used (as nobody has been prosecuted to date) will be interesting.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Magnum wrote:I would urge caution . The news from Portugal is not good. .It cannot be used by Amaral and the PJ.. .I am gutted

I will update you when I have it in writing  

Yourself and a poster on cmomm are both stating very similar, is it possible you have the same source. A further explanation of why this new evidence can't be used (as nobody has been prosecuted to date) will be interesting.

The word has come via a telephone call from Portugal. Apparently dates can be manipulated so the data has no real relevance.  Being a non techy person I am awaiting a written source.. .and will post here as soon as I get it

There is a possibility that we can get a story into the media about this. .Will keep you posted. .

Think the McCanns need to change their name,Eliot Ness untouchable.

Resistor wrote:Just looking in, I am really quite shocked that I have been mentioned in dispatches

For the date of the crawl to have been wrong, the server clock on WB server would have to have been wrong.  That is extremely unlikely, because server timers pick up their time from official sources, such as MSF in Cumbria.  It's referred to as an ITS (Internet Time Service).

In turn, the crawler software uses the server clock to timestamp things.  The timestamp is therefore the date/time of the server where the page is cached (stored) - not the time on the server where the page is held.  So if a page is held on a page in the US, but the crawler is operating from the UK, the timestamp will be in GMT (or BST, as the case may be).

So for a "glitch" in the time, the actual server itself would have to be wrongly set, and that means all the other pages cached on 30 April will be wrongly timestamped as well.

The three variables that Andrew has asked about look like Javascript variables that are just used for displaying things on the page.  They are a dynamic content that is embedded into the HTML, so they can change but the HTML around it does not, exactly like a dynamic news feed on a page.  Where do the values for these variables come from?  The timestamp as going by the server clock.  Unless someone has specifically gone in and manually changed them.  But there is no reason to do that - and why, especially, on one small page out of over three petabytes of archive.

So maybe it is a "recycled" page with a different name?  No.  That is not possible.  If the date of the crawl is correct, i.e. 30 April 2007, then a page called mccann.html must have existed at that point in time, in order to be found and cached.  There is no chance that it could have been called foxy.html or foobar.html or qwerty.html and later renamed.  Because then it would have been cached as foxy.html or whatever.  

How was this found out?  I have no idea.  I cannot imagine the incredible odds of this happening.  There are no hyperlinks to advertise it's presence, it was just sitting about loose on a server, completely unconnected to anything else, but the robot found it and cached it, exactly as it was designed to do.  Like dogs, bots don't lie.  They are tools, they don't have any subjective judgement, they do exactly as they are programmed to do, and they don't make mistakes.

An average simple little HTML page, even allowing for pictures, is about 1/2 a megabyte.  There are 1099511627776 megabytes in a petabyte, and Wayback holds over 3 pb of information (and rising).  So you can see the incredible odds of this ever coming to light at all.  I would love to know who found it, and in what circumstances - and please can I have six numbers for this week's Lotto.

   

Hi Resistor, and thanks for your persistance with this. I too think it's a bombshell - proper hard evidence.

I do have a query with the underlined bit. Last night I was using Wayback to have a poke around in Gerry's blogs, looking for fridge references (haven't found the page, yet, Wayback doesn't seem to have captured them all). But it would appear that the Find Madeleine site has had 2 different web names. Originally it was called "Bring Back Madeleine" and Gerry's blogs can be found by putting this URL into the Wayback machine:

http://www.bringmadeleinehome.com/blog/

However, the site was later renamed Find Madeleine and the blogs can also be found via this URL into Wayback:

http://www.findmadeleine.com/blog

The interesting thing is that both these addresses bring up the same pages. For example, if you seach both URLs via Wayback and open the result in each case for 2 October 2007, the same page is displayed:

First, using bringmadeleinehome https://web.archive.org/web/20071002071520/http://bringmadeleinehome.com/

and using findmadeleine https://web.archive.org/web/20071002040053/http://findmadeleine.com/

Captured pages have been saved by the crawler for the same site under different domain names.

Is this the same thing as you're referring to in your post?

So surely

Resistor wrote:

Magnum wrote:I would urge caution . The news from Portugal is not good. .It cannot be used by Amaral and the PJ.. .I am gutted

I will update you when I have it in writing  

Not in the appeal, no; no matter how explosive, it wouldn't be relevant.  But that's not to say it cannot be used in a future case - a criminal one in the UK, for example.

The words ''red herring '' and too vague have been used so I am back to square one and am following your posts with great interest..

Personally when it comes to anything McCann related the word I don't buy into the ''glitch'' excuse.