CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

Resistor wrote:It's highly indicative to me that there is no "timestamp" error.  Because then they would all have THE SAME "timestamp error".  It looks to me like a pointer error, generated by a bug in, or misuse of, the indexing software.  And it also looks as though someone is digging a hole even deeper in trying to fix it, and really they should just throw away the shovel.

So does that mean that there was a McCann 'folder' in existence on 30th April, but pointer error placed wrong elements in it ?

froggy wrote:

Resistor wrote:It's highly indicative to me that there is no "timestamp" error.  Because then they would all have THE SAME "timestamp error".  It looks to me like a pointer error, generated by a bug in, or misuse of, the indexing software.  And it also looks as though someone is digging a hole even deeper in trying to fix it, and really they should just throw away the shovel.

So does that mean that there was a McCann 'folder' in existence on 30th April, but pointer error placed wrong elements in it ?

I think that's the current train of thought, Froggy - stuff that truly was from 30 April, and other stuff from later, that should have gone into a different index. And of course it's now all mixed in together, the only people who would be able to tell would be Wayback, and they are not saying We have no way of separating it out using only the parts visible to us. We would have to see other information on that server, and/or the actual source code, which we would have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting now. Unfortunately.

Bubblewrapped wrote:My mother knows nothing about computers. Yesterday she visited us and I was on my laptop. A site asked me for a password and I didn't know what a special character meant as part of the password. I became very frustrated. My mum asked whats wrong to which I replied this site is asking for an effing special character as part of the password. She replied....
Tarzan ?

Bubblewrapped, amidst all this good work people are doing here , which as a thicko is going way over my head, your comment above really made me chuckle, as I am having many sad things happening at the mo........... so thank you for that.

Resistor wrote:

froggy wrote:

Resistor wrote:It's highly indicative to me that there is no "timestamp" error.  Because then they would all have THE SAME "timestamp error".  It looks to me like a pointer error, generated by a bug in, or misuse of, the indexing software.  And it also looks as though someone is digging a hole even deeper in trying to fix it, and really they should just throw away the shovel.

So does that mean that there was a McCann 'folder' in existence on 30th April, but pointer error placed wrong elements in it ?

I think that's the current train of thought, Froggy - stuff that truly was from 30 April, and other stuff from later, that should have gone into a different index.  And of course it's now all mixed in together, the only people who would be able to tell would be Wayback, and they are not saying We have no way of separating it out using only the parts visible to us.  We would have to see other information on that server, and/or the actual source code, which we would have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting now.  Unfortunately.

Strange, that. They appear to be shooting themselves in the foot and losing credibility to appease a site owner to whom they have no responsibility.

Bubblewrapped wrote:My mother knows nothing about computers. Yesterday she visited us and I was on my laptop. A site asked me for a password and I didn't know what a special character meant as part of the password. I became very frustrated. My mum asked whats wrong to which I replied this site is asking for an effing special character as part of the password. She replied....
Tarzan ?

Lovely story. Bless her.
Reminds me of the joke about the blonde who had to create a new password that contained 7 characters. 
She got fed up typing   happysleepydopeygrumpysneezybashfuldoc every time she wanted to read her emails.

Resistor Rich Hall just posted this.

https://rp.sharefile.com/share#/download/s1cb5d922a0a431a9

All Greek to me, but hopefully meaningful and useful to those who understand such things  

Resistor et al.
Is it possible that the later (October) pages are in the wrong index (folder) and when the main McCann.htm page reconstructs / replays this at the retrieval point it constructs a page which has items from the future, as such

Just so your aware (if you haven't noticed) I've been inputting on the cmomm thread the same as this one as it has been open to guests. With this being potentially dynamite answers should be sought from all quarters who have any expertise. Don't want to be put on the naughty step

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Just so your aware (if you haven't noticed) I've been inputting on the cmomm thread the same as this one as it has been open to guests. With this being potentially dynamite answers should be sought from all quarters who have any expertise. Don't want to be put on the naughty step

Quite right HKP. We should be working together on this, not letting petty differences get in the way.

Resistor wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Just so your aware (if you haven't noticed) I've been inputting on the cmomm thread the same as this one as it has been open to guests. With this being potentially dynamite answers should be sought from all quarters who have any expertise. Don't want to be put on the naughty step

Quite right HKP.  We should be working together on this, not letting petty differences get in the way.

Any thoughts on my October pages in wrong index retrieval theory?

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Just so your aware (if you haven't noticed) I've been inputting on the cmomm thread the same as this one as it has been open to guests. With this being potentially dynamite answers should be sought from all quarters who have any expertise. Don't want to be put on the naughty step

I imagine there could be any number of IT specialists with no interest in CEOP or the McCanns who would be interested in finding the solution to this.

Also, the wider coverage it gets, the less likelihood of any sort of cover-up occurring.

Now that's an idea. I'll ask my IT [with next to none interest in McC case, but always curious about "glitches" and stuff ].

ETA I just called and he'll have a look at it tomorrow. Was slightly breathless when I told him what the problem is and will get back to me tomorrow late afternoon.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Just so your aware (if you haven't noticed) I've been inputting on the cmomm thread the same as this one as it has been open to guests. With this being potentially dynamite answers should be sought from all quarters who have any expertise. Don't want to be put on the naughty step

Good on you

Much appreciated by both forums I should think (well ......except the usual culprits who, I bet, have gone into complete paranoia and are seething that Jill has allowed it!).

Just as a matter of interest HKP (and I shall write out 100 lines for being off topic) how did you find out that, as a banned ex-member, you could re-register as a guest?

I`m more interested in the photo - I have never seen that particular one of MBM before - has anyone ?





Sorry everyone - yes that photo has been seen before - it`s on the BBC website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2007/05/10/madeleine_mccann_round_up_feature.shtml

Freedom wrote:Just as a matter of interest HKP (and I shall write out 100 lines for being off topic) how did you find out that, as a banned ex-member, you could re-register as a guest?

I'm not registered that particular thread is open to the public so to speak. It asks to type in the code you see prior to accepting the post. Good old plebgate objected but was overruled.

ETA. There's some really good stuff on both here and there the guests have certainly added value

I now see that some topics (not just that one) have the reply option when you're not logged in. 

I wonder if I could post anything without being whooshed at the speed of lightning!

Why was Richard D Hall needing this page? .... and then saying he could not read something and could anyone provide a clearer pic. Was it the URL he couldn`t read ? And do we need to read it ?

It looks like
web.archive.org`web/20073430115601/https//ceop.gov.uk/edex or index.amp

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Resistor wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Just so your aware (if you haven't noticed) I've been inputting on the cmomm thread the same as this one as it has been open to guests. With this being potentially dynamite answers should be sought from all quarters who have any expertise. Don't want to be put on the naughty step

Quite right HKP.  We should be working together on this, not letting petty differences get in the way.

Any thoughts on my October pages in wrong index retrieval theory?

At the moment HKP, I don't think any potential theory can be ruled out. I haven't had time to chew over your one yet, but I will have a think about it tonight, promise

Resistor,
Please don't feel under any pressure to respond I'm probably getting over eager to find an answer

Whilst on that BBC website I noticed a paragraph :-

"On 30 April - Kate and Gerry McCann speak movingly, in an ITV1 documentary, of the night their daughter Madeleine vanished, a year after the three-year-old disappeared."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2007/05/10/madeleine_mccann_round_up_feature.shtml

I think that was 2008.  Could WBM just have got the year wrong ?

P.S. "In the two-hour documentary, which charts their campaign for an EU-wide missing child alert system, Mr McCann spoke of their current existence with no news of Madeleine's whereabouts as like "purgatory". "

Mimi wrote:I`m more interested in the photo - I have never seen that particular one of MBM before - has anyone ?





Sorry everyone - yes that photo has been seen before - it`s on the BBC website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2007/05/10/madeleine_mccann_round_up_feature.shtml

Yes, I was also very interested in that photo. How could CEOP have it so early as it wasn't the first photo printed on Amy's printer nor was it any of the early released pictures afaik.

Therefore, if this page is found to originate to 30 April - or even into early May - this is another reason to suggest that information not yet released by the McCanns was held by CEOP. Or am I grossly mistaken?

Mimi wrote:Whilst on that BBC website I noticed a paragraph :-

"On 30 April - Kate and Gerry McCann speak movingly, in an ITV1 documentary, of the night their daughter Madeleine vanished, a year after the three-year-old disappeared."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2007/05/10/madeleine_mccann_round_up_feature.shtml

I think that was 2008.  Could WBM just have got the year wrong ?

P.S. "In the two-hour documentary, which charts their campaign for an EU-wide missing child alert system, Mr McCann spoke of their current existence with no news of Madeleine's whereabouts as like "purgatory". "

Don't think we can rule on anything at the moment Mimi

Mimi wrote:Why was Richard D Hall needing this page? .... and then saying he could not read something and could anyone provide a clearer pic.  Was it the URL he couldn`t read ?  And do we need to read it ?

It looks like
web.archive.org`web/20073430115601/https//ceop.gov.uk/edex or index.amp

That is the CEOP home page (not the mccann one) filed in an April folder, but with news on it dated October. The big number in the URL is the date and time of the folder - 2007 - 04 - 30 - 11 - 58 - 01.

The issue is that particular version of ceop.gov.uk/index dates from at the earliest, late October, so should not have been indexed in an April folder. There must have been a ceop.gov.uk/index file already in there, dated April; maybe (probably?) that has been overwritten by the October-or-later one. I think the pointer/indexing error (if there is one) must have happened to a capture at some point after October 27 2007 but before Jan 18 2008. So I am looking at some of the captures between then - and there don't seem to be that many, which is kinda suspicious in itself....

I'm also investigating down another track, so you might not hear from me for a wee while, I will let you know if I find anything juicy.