CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

Gaggzy wrote:Ah, but according to WBM, on APRIL 30 2007, canada12 was a 'he.'

That's because the "he" bit was captured on 30/4/07 and the "s" bit was added when the page was rebuilt from October's stuff

Mo wrote:Thanks, unfortunately I'm the kind of person who takes things at face value!  I will leave for the experts in future.

I also took it at face value initially - then after my morning cuppa I thought it sounded just like TBs style, then thought surely the chief exec of WBM wouldn`t talk in that way. I even believed the bit about them having to change their title to Way Out Machine initially. That`s just me I`m afraid - my sons tell me `Mum, we used to tell you anything and you always believed it`

Resistor wrote:Over the road, rustyjames makes a very good point on page 81, 10:55
And he is 100% right, that is EXACTLY what WBM should be investigating
But either they won't, or if they do, we'll never hear about it

rustyjames wrote:Secondly they have available a MUCH more important set of information.  As I've explained wayback :-) in this thread, the pages we see are not like a screenshot of a page, or a folder full of everything that has been grabbed, but are re-created from information that was captured during crawls.

It certainly seemed to do that with the CEOP homepage of 24/04/06.  It shouldn't have looked like that without the associated CSS, which was only captured later, on 30/04/06.  It's rebuilt a page captured on 24/04/06 with data taken from the future.  (p41 of this thread).

He is (much better at) describing what I was trying to get at earlier, there is no folder which everyone keeps mentioning its an index which contains ceop homepage, the McCann. htm, the October file etc. When retrieved WBM creates the page you are looking for using what's in the index. I now think (as Canada12 pointed out) that because the October file belongs with the ceop home page and is not related to the McCann.htm (so to speak) it is irrelevant. My non techie conclusion is that the McCann.htm was 'grabbed' on 30/04 just as WBM says it was.

Mimi wrote:

Mo wrote:Thanks, unfortunately I'm the kind of person who takes things at face value!  I will leave for the experts in future.

I also took it at face value initially - then after my morning cuppa I thought it sounded just like TBs style, then thought surely the chief exec of WBM wouldn`t talk in that way.  I even believed the bit about them having to change their title to Way Out Machine initially.  That`s just me I`m afraid - my sons tell me `Mum, we used to tell you anything and you always believed it`  

Thanks Mimi I've felt such a twit all morning even though Resistor was very kind! I more or less read the top part of the email and dashed over here to let everyone know, although it could have been worse, I could quite easily have been dashing the other way Let's hope I've learned my lesson now.

PeterMac wrote:

Andrew wrote:
Lots of activity from the 'paid shills' which basically means the truth is close.
Oh - and what's all that about with the Bennett Spoof.... Didn't realise it was a laughing matter. The seriousness of all this and the implications are potentially gigantic.
Anyway, Late for lego class.

The basics of what we have been looking at for the past 8 years and more are not a laughing matter, but the implications both of the original story, and of everything that so many people have done since to prevent the truth coming out are so dreadful that from time to time humour is the only acceptable outlet.
I include myself as one who seeks to take the heat out of some developing situations with a well (or badly) placed cartoon or joke, or limerick.

As an example - Almost everything that Mitchell has done and said has been dreadful, in that he has sought actively to conceal the truth, but also risible in its total ineptitude.
Since we cannot get at him in any other way, then ridicule is the most powerful acceptable weapon we possess
Ditto Carter-Ruck, ditto Gamble, ditto the McCanns' lawyers, ditto the McCanns private detectives, ditto most of the extended family

I do understand what your saying Peter and would totally agree.

However - the point I was trying to make was that making a mockery and impersonating the CEO of the Internet Archive at this moment in time doesn't seem (to me anyway) very funny when the same person (along with many others) are trying to get an honest and logical response from the same organisation into this so called 'glitch'.

Frustration on my behalf most likely. Frustrated at everything to do with this case. Frustrated that I can't join in with the big boys and girls on this particular topic and frustrated that I am running out of crayons.

Some people just aren`t funny.

PS - not you PM - you crease me up sometimes.

Mo wrote:

Mimi wrote:

Mo wrote:Thanks, unfortunately I'm the kind of person who takes things at face value!  I will leave for the experts in future.

I also took it at face value initially - then after my morning cuppa I thought it sounded just like TBs style, then thought surely the chief exec of WBM wouldn`t talk in that way.  I even believed the bit about them having to change their title to Way Out Machine initially.  That`s just me I`m afraid - my sons tell me `Mum, we used to tell you anything and you always believed it`  

Thanks Mimi I've felt such a twit all morning even though Resistor was very kind!   I more or less read the top part of the email and dashed over here to let everyone know, although it could have been worse, I could quite easily have been dashing the other way   Let's hope I've learned my lesson now.

I think we have all learned - the hard way - not to take anything at face value when it comes to the McCanns!

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Resistor wrote:Over the road, rustyjames makes a very good point on page 81, 10:55
And he is 100% right, that is EXACTLY what WBM should be investigating
But either they won't, or if they do, we'll never hear about it

rustyjames wrote:Secondly they have available a MUCH more important set of information.  As I've explained wayback :-) in this thread, the pages we see are not like a screenshot of a page, or a folder full of everything that has been grabbed, but are re-created from information that was captured during crawls.

It certainly seemed to do that with the CEOP homepage of 24/04/06.  It shouldn't have looked like that without the associated CSS, which was only captured later, on 30/04/06.  It's rebuilt a page captured on 24/04/06 with data taken from the future.  (p41 of this thread).

He is (much better at) describing what I was trying to get at earlier, there is no folder which everyone keeps mentioning its an index which contains ceop homepage, the McCann. htm, the October file etc. When retrieved WBM creates the page you are looking for using what's in the index. I now think (as Canada12 pointed out) that because the October file belongs with the ceop home page and is not related to the McCann.htm (so to speak) it is irrelevant. My non techie conclusion is that the McCann.htm was 'grabbed' on 30/04 just as WBM says it was.

I agree with you, HKP and Canada12 and rustyjames

Andrew wrote:
Frustration on my behalf most likely. Frustrated at everything to do with this case. Frustrated that I can't join in with the big boys and girls on this particular topic and frustrated that I am running out of crayons.

Like you I am frustrated that my knowledge of computers is unequal to the task.
When I did the work on the Last Photo I also lacked detailed specialist knowledge, and sought and relied on the assistance of experts - some of whom post here - you know who you are, and thank you - also sought the assistance of a Professor in the US who designs and teaches the algorithms used for 'photoshopping', and of a man who spends his professional life actually doing it, for a great deal of money in the TV advertising industry
Their conclusions coincided, and I therefore developed the hypotheses accordingly.
And behold, within a short time I found the detailed weather reports, and was pointed to the photos that people post on Flickr, and to some eye-witness diaries kept by people whose profession it once was to watch weather and interpret, for the purpose of prediction (retired RAF Navigator) And it all fitted and proved that the photo cannot have been taken on 3/5/7. It is a forgery.

Please don't let this thread drift by replying to that part. It was only an example of how lay-people have to rely on professionals.

Great post and good points made PM.

Sometimes with so many 'experts' on the case, you don't know what is true and what's not. Believable or not etc.

With you on the 'last photo' though.

Can't really add anymore to that.



If I knew what I was actually talking about then I would give this Chris Butler a call myself or/and his boss. (yep, I know Freedom. Not a good idea)

Andrew wrote:Great post and good points made PM.

Sometimes with so many 'experts' on the case, you don't know what is true and what's not. Believable or not etc.

With you on the 'last photo' though.

Can't really add anymore to that.



If I knew what I was actually talking about then I would give this Chris Butler a call myself or/and his boss. (yep, I know Freedom. Not a good idea)spot on in my opinion.

Andrew if you haven't already, take a look at Gaggzy's post on CMoMM (same thread) page 24, Jun 19 @ 2.05pm. Spot on in my opinion.

Copied with thanks to CMoMM and author TB (doing what he is best at).

"
This letter to Mr Kahle, Director of Wayback, is for real.

I sent it by e-mail earlier this evening:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To Mr Brewster Kahle
Director
Wayback Machine

23 June 2015


I wrote to your Office Manager Mr Butler on 17 June asking him three questions about your apparent capture of a page on the site of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre at 11.58am on 30 April 2007.
This followed one email from Mr Butler (to Isabelle McFadden, 17 June, 9.47am) confirming that the capture was accurate and, moreover, attaching copies of what data were captured on that occasion.

The three questions I asked were:

1. Can you confirm when this page was first recognised and archived by your servers?
2. Can you also confirm what were the contents of the page read on that date?
3. Please can you provide the exact date and time?

He has not since replied, although in one of his three emails that day he did say that Wayback was investigating the matter.

I am asking these questions again because as you may now know the has been a great deal of interest about this 30 April ‘capture’ on a number of websites which closely follow the case of missing Madeleine McCann, since someone examined the Wayback Machine and apparently found a ‘mccann’ page on the CEOP site three days before Madeleine was reported missing.

On one Madeleine McCann forum, ‘The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’, for example, there have in the past 7 days been over 26,000 views of threads discussing Mr Butler’s 3 contradictory e-mails. On another similar site, Madeleine McCann Mystery’, there have been a further 16,000 views. There will be many more until Wayback provides a convincing and conclusive explanation for Mr Butler’s contradictory e-mails on this matter .

There has been on these two sites (and elsewhere) much technical discussion. It can be summarised as follows.
Many suggest that your ‘capture’ was perfectly accurate and consistent with some of the possible scenarios in this as-yet-unsolved case. A typical such post was this:

“Through all of these pages and pages of arguments and counter-arguments I'm afraid my initial assessment of the situation still stands. This was a genuine capture of an April 30 page that was not made public. There were going to be two photos but only one was in place. I believe the second photo had a placeholder in place, so that the second photo could be inserted when provided. There were links to pdf's of posters, which could also be uploaded when provided. Until I see something that convinces me otherwise, that's where my opinion lies. There was no error on WBM's part. It was accurate”.

Others have come forward with a whole variety of different scenarios as to how an error might have occurred, if that is there ever was any error. These suggestions often conflict with each other and are fiercely contested amongst those who think there might have been an error.

I am not aware of any further e-mails or any statement yet by your company about the controversy raging about this capture on 30 April 2007. This must surely be of significant concern to you and many others as well. After all, as many have observed, if there was indeed an error affecting that ‘capture’ then:

* what kind of error was it,
* why did it happen,
* how many other similar errors have been made by Wayback
* and over what period of time?

Indeed someone asked the obvious question: Can we actually rely on Wayback any more?

Furthermore, concern has been expressed by some that they have reason to believe that you are not only trying to find out what the problem is (if any), but have been trying to ‘fix’ it and, even more worryingly, are altering the data you had captured. Some have observed that this amounts to the deliberate falsification of data. A further obvious concern is that if the 11.58am capture on 30 April is not correct, it is scarcely credible that only one fault, on this ‘mccann’ page, has been found. There must be others, and Wayback surely has a duty to its customers to fully explain the nature of any error.

If Wayback has any value, it must be accurate. Any errors must be fully explained: people have even been convicted of crimes on the apparent robustness of your data. If you have altered data in this case, how will anyone in future know whether the data they see on your website are the original data - or have been subject to all manner of amendment?

I should be glad therefore if you could please answer my queries or let me know when you will be in a position to make a full statement on this controversial issue.

Anthony Bennett "

Nuala makes a good point actually - there don't seem to be any criminal convictions based on WB evidence.

There are, however, plenty of civil case decisions, running into millions of dollars.  

If WB is wrong, and somebody has wrongly had to pay out, then they are in a good position to not only have that decision reversed and restitution ab initio - they could also sue WB for dereliction.  And again, millions of dollars are at stake.

Tony has also pointed out that this has now been a full week, with no answers from WB.

I still believe, 100%, that the WB machine was correct all along and that a mccann page was correctly captured and indexed on 30 April 2007 at 11:58:03.

I also believe that WB are reluctant to publicly admit that there was no error, because now they understand the consequences that this would have on the biggest, most notorious missing child case in history.  Those consequences are big and scary and now they must realise that they are sitting on absolute dynamite.  It would scare the hell out of me.  Last week, I hosted an event for the BCS and when somebody turned up to film it, I was absolutely horrified, because I don't like being the focus of any sort of attention.  I can't even begin to imagine how the WB people must feel right now.

ETA this reminds me of a postr I made on another forum - many, many years ago. A hypothetical situation.

Suppose you knew - for certain - you found absolutely irrefutable evidence of what happened to Madeleine. 100% definitive proof, and nobody else knew about it, just you.

Where would you go with it? Who would you give it to? Who could you actually trust to do the right thing with it? And with you?

Yep, I feel sorry for WBM, they haven't actually done anything wrong, but just look at the mess they are now in.
IMO

Ps, I'm still here, still reading, still not understanding and wishing I'd paid more attention in IT lessons!

Pps, Mr Amaral Resistor!

That's the only one I would trust too, DDL

This was posted over the way by guest whodunit.

In any case, as I tried to highlight in a previous post, I have a screencap of code embedded in the May 13, 2007 capture of mccann.html under the heading 'previous/next capture' heading which makes it 'obvious' that the closest previous capture to May 13 was April 30. Unless the sequential coding is ALSO off JUST for mccann pages at CEOP then my dears this thing is a slam dunk: mccann.html existed on April 30, 2007.

Something else.. I was using a  reverse image website last night called tineye. Not sure how reliable it is. Anyhoo I uploaded the picture of M that is on the Ceop page ( not tennis balls) and there are 11 instances of it being used on the web. Tennis balls has 54 pages of its use. As far as I can see the other photo is not quoted as being on Ceops website at any time but the 2 used on the Ceop site -tennis balls and the other did appear on www.popscreen.com.


JPEG, 152x254, 6.2 KB

Wish I was more tech aware cos I have no idea if this means anything.

Compare Match



www.popscreen.com

Image: 140188716_help-find-madeleine-mccann-----jessops.jpg

Page: www.popscreen.com/p/MTQ1NTE2MzE5/Madeleine-Mcca...

Crawled on 2014-11-28

Resistor wrote: ETA this reminds me of a post I made on another forum - many, many years ago.  A hypothetical situation.

Suppose you knew - for certain - you found absolutely irrefutable evidence of what happened to Madeleine.  100% definitive proof, and nobody else knew about it, just you.

Where would you go with it?  Who would you give it to?  Who could you actually trust to do the right thing with it?  And with you?

An interesting concept. I surmise that anyone with definitive proof would conveniently disappear or be found in a staged suicide.

Whilst I agree with PM and the benefits of humour at times in this case, I do think that TB's spoof was a mistake given that he is now requesting information/answers from the CEO of the company he just took the pee out of.

Jellybot wrote:Whilst I agree with PM and the benefits of humour at times in this case, I do think that TB's spoof was a mistake given that he is now requesting information/answers from the CEO of the company he just took the pee out of.

I totally agree Jellybot. Not funny under the circumstances.
I find the following snipped paragraph akin to a veiled threat and  is sailing very close to the wind.

Furthermore, concern has been expressed by some that they have reason to believe that you are not only trying to find out what the problem is (if any), but have been trying to ‘fix’ it and, even more worryingly, are altering the data you had captured. Some have observed that this amounts to the deliberate falsification of data. A further obvious concern is that if the 11.58am capture on 30 April is not correct, it is scarcely credible that only one fault, on this ‘mccann’ page, has been found. There must be others, and Wayback surely has a duty to its customers to fully explain the nature of any error.


TB does not have the qualifications to say this nor does he have the right to accuse them of anything at this stage.  I am especially annoyed at the way he alludes to it being others who have raised these concerns.

chirpyinsect wrote:

Jellybot wrote:Whilst I agree with PM and the benefits of humour at times in this case, I do think that TB's spoof was a mistake given that he is now requesting information/answers from the CEO of the company he just took the pee out of.

I totally agree Jellybot. Not funny under the circumstances.
I find the following snipped paragraph akin to a veiled threat and  is sailing very close to the wind.

Furthermore, concern has been expressed by some that they have reason to believe that you are not only trying to find out what the problem is (if any), but have been trying to ‘fix’ it and, even more worryingly, are altering the data you had captured. Some have observed that this amounts to the deliberate falsification of data. A further obvious concern is that if the 11.58am capture on 30 April is not correct, it is scarcely credible that only one fault, on this ‘mccann’ page, has been found. There must be others, and Wayback surely has a duty to its customers to fully explain the nature of any error.


TB does not have the qualifications to say this nor does he have the right to accuse them of anything at this stage.  I am especially annoyed at the way he alludes to it being others who have raised these concerns.

Not sure that the company actually has any customers as it doesn't appear to charge for the service.

Did CMoMM's there from the start member Aiyoyo really not realise that the message was a spoof!

I agree that perhaps the spoof message was not appropriate at the moment.  





Re: Claim by 'Stevo' - "CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007"

Post  aiyoyo Today at 8:28 am

   
Wayback, Way Out then Way off ....(what is it going to be next?)
It appears WBM's trade name has been changed twice now in a matter of a short few days.

There are zillion of active/interactive data passing through internet every nanosecond so unless one went looking specifically for certain thing, there is no hell chance of Internet Authority (whatever that is, I have no clue) knowing that WBM is having housekeeping problem (so to speak) at the precise point in time of it happening?

The other thing is, software/system error abound and in common occurrence in and among the zillion website hosts, not something that would attract immediate attention of Internet Authority (unless you are under their active surveillance) you would think, let alone warrant their interference to the extent that they would take the liberty to change one's preferred trade name willy nilly (even if that's within their right to do so, surely they would issue warning/s first?).

Given that the problem is a very minor one - 'software bug or human input mistake' -easily fixable just by a few strokes on the keyboard, it seems odd that WBM had attracted the timely attention/intervention of Internet Authority and had their trademark/tradename suspended.

The other thing I find odd is: how did WBM hear of Canada 12?  Are they reading forum/fora?
You'd think their primary concern would be that of - to put right the records for sake of integrity, and not if they got forum poster's gender right or not?  
Why had they singled out Canada 12's claim and reacted to it?  I find that weird.

Jellybot wrote:Whilst I agree with PM and the benefits of humour at times in this case, I do think that TB's spoof was a mistake given that he is now requesting information/answers from the CEO of the company he just took the pee out of.

Absolutely and I made a similar point yesterday.

Then he wonders why he has zero credibility and nobody takes him seriously.

Andrew wrote:

Jellybot wrote:Whilst I agree with PM and the benefits of humour at times in this case, I do think that TB's spoof was a mistake given that he is now requesting information/answers from the CEO of the company he just took the pee out of.

Absolutely and I made a similar point yesterday.

Then he wonders why he has zero credibility and nobody takes him seriously.

Hasn't the same happened to Redwood and NSY? Not that these people would have shivered after reading a spoof and sixteenthousand requests for information, as I can understand perhaps archive.org would have under suggestive questions.

A very good point posted on the other forum - although I wouldn't know where to start.


Post worriedmum Today at 11:52

Just a random aside, but couldn't the 'missing fridge' story be explored using Wayback? Has anyone tried?

Mo wrote:A very good point posted on the other forum - although I wouldn't know where to start.


Post  worriedmum Today at 11:52

Just a random aside, but couldn't the 'missing fridge' story be explored using Wayback? Has anyone tried?

I did try Mo. I was able to find all Gerry`s blogs under www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk but having read them all there is no mention of the fridge. I think he must have removed all reference to it before any crawls were done.
I even went on the official find Madeleine site crawls and though some blogs are there they are from about a year after the event.