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

**candyfloss** Sat 27 Jun 2015, 11:15 pm

I don't think we should be putting that information here, even though syn has told us most of it. I think usernames are quite enough and we should not be interested in families, husbands or anything imo.

Let's keep to the topic of the wayback machine thingy, and not discuss other posters.

Andrew Sat 27 Jun 2015, 11:18 pm

@nuala, timing is always interesting. I remember Bennett went missing a while ago when another potential big story came to light.

@freedom - I know that cheeky little remark was aimed at me. But you know me - I say things as I see fit. Sincere apologies for that.

@mimi. Wouldn't it be great to speak to Martin. He must know so much and clearly had a gagging order in place. The work he does/done has been amazing. Literally everyone thanks/respects his work... Oh apart from the McTellALotOfPorkies.

Says it all.

Andrew Sat 27 Jun 2015, 11:20 pm

Mimi wrote:I put wrong information about Syn. She says she was not married to Neil Grime. Apologies for that.

Well as long as it wasn't stated she was married to Andrew, then all is ok.

Guest Sat 27 Jun 2015, 11:22 pm

Nuala wrote:
Resistor wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:Syn is a regular on the Twitter McCann hashtag. It is she who claimed the Pro-McCann poster basilandmanuel who Brenda referred to a lot in her final Tweets was Amy Tierney.

I've always been fascinated by this, and until now have seen no reason to doubt her, but her sudden arrival on CMOMM purely to post (from what I can see) inaccurately about this WBM issue makes me wonder about her motives in a completely different way.
She also confused Java with Javascript at one point. It may have been a genuine mistake, but it's not one that I would expect even a very novice programmer to make. Even the most junior of programmers can tell you what language they are coding in. I must admit, I lost interest in her posts after that.

I think the Java (omitting the Script) was just an abbreviation.

Why would you lose interest in her posts after that? Surely if getting to the truth is what you want, then you would read and assess everything?

How can anyone come to an informed conclusion otherwise, I don't understand the "I'm not reading that" form of debate.

I did not say "I'm not reading that". I said I lost interest. Plainly it is yourself who is having trouble reading and assessing.

And no programmer I have ever met or worked with has abbreviated "Javascript" to "Java".

Andrew Sat 27 Jun 2015, 11:29 pm

I bought some 'java lynx' not so long back.

Not quite the same. Smelt almost as bad as my computer skills though.

Nuala Sat 27 Jun 2015, 11:35 pm

Resistor wrote:
Nuala wrote:
Resistor wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:Syn is a regular on the Twitter McCann hashtag. It is she who claimed the Pro-McCann poster basilandmanuel who Brenda referred to a lot in her final Tweets was Amy Tierney.

I've always been fascinated by this, and until now have seen no reason to doubt her, but her sudden arrival on CMOMM purely to post (from what I can see) inaccurately about this WBM issue makes me wonder about her motives in a completely different way.
She also confused Java with Javascript at one point. It may have been a genuine mistake, but it's not one that I would expect even a very novice programmer to make. Even the most junior of programmers can tell you what language they are coding in. I must admit, I lost interest in her posts after that.

I think the Java (omitting the Script) was just an abbreviation.

Why would you lose interest in her posts after that? Surely if getting to the truth is what you want, then you would read and assess everything?

How can anyone come to an informed conclusion otherwise, I don't understand the "I'm not reading that" form of debate.

I did not say "I'm not reading that". I said I lost interest. Plainly it is yourself who is having trouble reading and assessing.

And no programmer I have ever met or worked with has abbreviated "Javascript" to "Java".

I agree, they would abbreviate to JS.

But I would not have abbreviated it to JS in the circumstances because a lot of readers wouldn't have known what that meant.

How can you lose interest? And still have an informed opinion?

Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

Guest Sat 27 Jun 2015, 11:43 pm

Nuala wrote:
Resistor wrote:
Nuala wrote:
Resistor wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:Syn is a regular on the Twitter McCann hashtag. It is she who claimed the Pro-McCann poster basilandmanuel who Brenda referred to a lot in her final Tweets was Amy Tierney.

I've always been fascinated by this, and until now have seen no reason to doubt her, but her sudden arrival on CMOMM purely to post (from what I can see) inaccurately about this WBM issue makes me wonder about her motives in a completely different way.
She also confused Java with Javascript at one point. It may have been a genuine mistake, but it's not one that I would expect even a very novice programmer to make. Even the most junior of programmers can tell you what language they are coding in. I must admit, I lost interest in her posts after that.

I think the Java (omitting the Script) was just an abbreviation.

Why would you lose interest in her posts after that? Surely if getting to the truth is what you want, then you would read and assess everything?

How can anyone come to an informed conclusion otherwise, I don't understand the "I'm not reading that" form of debate.

I did not say "I'm not reading that". I said I lost interest. Plainly it is yourself who is having trouble reading and assessing.

And no programmer I have ever met or worked with has abbreviated "Javascript" to "Java".

I agree, they would abbreviate to JS.

But I would not have abbreviated it to JS in the circumstances because a lot of readers wouldn't have known what that meant.

How can you lose interest? And still have an informed opinion?

Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

I have lost interest because most of the stuff she posts is rubbish and she keeps simply repeating it. She's not adding anything new to the debate at all. So I am now skim reading it, because I have no high expectations. I fail to see how repeating the same stuff, over and over, is going to contribute to anyone's "informed opinion". And I will thank you not to put your own words into my posts.

But I would not have abbreviated it to JS in the circumstances because a lot of readers wouldn't have known what that meant.

So let's confuse the readers even more, by replacing it with a completely different thing. What sort of sense does that make?

Nuala Sat 27 Jun 2015, 11:53 pm

@ Resistor

I have lost interest because most of the stuff she posts is rubbish and she keeps simply repeating it.

Can you direct me to which bits are rubbish. Specifically which bits, so I can understand. Thanks Smile

So let's confuse the readers even more, by replacing it with a completely different thing. What sort of sense does that make?

Non-technie readers wouldn't be confused because they don't even know there is a difference betwen Java and JavaScript.

So to them it's not replacing it with a completely different thing.

Guest Sat 27 Jun 2015, 11:58 pm

How arrogant! How dare you suggest what other, as you put it, "non-techie" readers know and don't know! Now you are the one speaking absolute rubbish. And whether you like it or not, the two are completely different, and assuming that "non techies" are too stupid to understand that, or won't care, is really not on. I also see your friend Syn has managed to derail the thread on CMoMM very nicely, too.

**candyfloss** Sun 28 Jun 2015, 12:02 am

Okay that's it - I am locking for a while till things calm down. It will open in the morning. This is getting us nowhere.

**candyfloss** Sun 28 Jun 2015, 8:24 am

Good morning to all - thread re-opened for discussion.

Guest Sun 28 Jun 2015, 9:24 am

Resistor wrote:
chirpyinsect wrote:Try www.screenshots.com/ceop.gov.uk/2007-04-30

If that doesn't work I will go on laptop
It's redirecting to ceop.police.uk as it looks right now, by the looks of things!
But there must have been a 30-4-07 capture at some point, or wouldn't have that URL. It's not even redirecting to a different URL, that is definitely the URL.
I have a feeling it takes it's data from Wayback anyway, so if we had looked at this page a month ago, say, we would have seen th CEOP 30-04-07 page in all it's glory. Now that WB have moved all the pointers, it can't find the original page anymore so it's just defaulting to the current one.
But it's still very interesting that the 2007-04-30 URL is still there, and proves that there must have been something on WB for that date, at some time.

Somebody's just pointed out on CMoMM that you can put in any date you like and it will show that page. So back to square one with this one, folks, sorry Sad

Thanks for trying though Chirpy, it was worth a shot anyway.

(It's not how I would have coded it. I would have made it redirect to a 404 not found or something, but that's just me.)

poster Sun 28 Jun 2015, 9:34 am

Andrew wrote:Last post from me tonight, but this again is what I find really interesting.

As 95% of the people here have been banned from over there, for either opposing dictatorial views and / or challenging prominent posters / not following the party line etc.. Then why all of a sudden when something like the WB / Ceop, which is potentially absolute dynamite comes on board they invite a free for all.

Fascinated what goes on behind the scenes.

----

It is indeed most peculiar. Controlling information flow? Rooting out what people might know? Playing games to create 'confusion'?

Having eliminated those who asked awkward questions and might genuinely be going somewhere and getting to the sensitive issues, then open up the discussion to can root out anyone else who might know too much or might become a threat?

Or something.

froggy Sun 28 Jun 2015, 9:35 am

I've been thinking about Mr Henshaw's last post and the extraordinary mention of GCHQ and MI5, completely out of the blue.
Either he was a short-lived WUM or has inside knowledge that he was trying to pass on without exposing his identiy.

Guest Sun 28 Jun 2015, 9:37 am

A WUM I'm thinking froggy.

poster Sun 28 Jun 2015, 9:40 am

Mimi wrote:Cribbed courtesy of CMOMM, Richard Henshaw`s opinion

"I posted last night after researching the WB machine and archiving process. I had little interest or knowledge of this case but was asked to give my opinion.
As an experienced lecturer in Comp Sci and data mining I can state that there is no error on the 30/04/2007 page. Discussion on the home page is another matter completely.
Sadly the questions asked by the 2nd enquiry triggered a panic reaction and it seems that WB is now desperately attempting to alter pointers to the later date.
I believe that this would stand as evidence of premeditation.

BB with respect your explanations are weak to say the very least.

I have now become very interested in the case and I’m doing my best to read historical facts. I’m not sure that this is a positive result for me!

Richard Henshaw
Guest"

-------

Oh excellent!

froggy Sun 28 Jun 2015, 9:44 am

caricature wrote:A WUM I'm thinking froggy.

Most likely but they usually last longer than 3 posts.

chirpyinsect Sun 28 Jun 2015, 9:49 am

Resistor wrote:
Resistor wrote:
chirpyinsect wrote:Try www.screenshots.com/ceop.gov.uk/2007-04-30

If that doesn't work I will go on laptop
It's redirecting to ceop.police.uk as it looks right now, by the looks of things!
But there must have been a 30-4-07 capture at some point, or wouldn't have that URL. It's not even redirecting to a different URL, that is definitely the URL.
I have a feeling it takes it's data from Wayback anyway, so if we had looked at this page a month ago, say, we would have seen th CEOP 30-04-07 page in all it's glory. Now that WB have moved all the pointers, it can't find the original page anymore so it's just defaulting to the current one.
But it's still very interesting that the 2007-04-30 URL is still there, and proves that there must have been something on WB for that date, at some time.

Somebody's just pointed out on CMoMM that you can put in any date you like and it will show that page. So back to square one with this one, folks, sorry Thanks for trying though Chirpy, it was worth a shot anyway.

(It's not how I would have coded it. I would have made it redirect to a 404 not found or something, but that's just me.)

That's what I was trying to say without really knowing why. I thought it odd that it was showing the ceop.police thingy on Apr 2007 when I think they only became that in 2009.
I was looking at that archive a lot last night and gathered it was showing rubbish
Syn is using it as an example so just wanted you to show she was wrong as I don't have the knowledge.

Guest Sun 28 Jun 2015, 9:52 am

froggy wrote:
caricature wrote:A WUM I'm thinking froggy.

Most likely but they usually last longer than 3 posts.

But a lot could be said in the three.

Dee Coy Sun 28 Jun 2015, 10:00 am

poster wrote:
Mimi wrote:Cribbed courtesy of CMOMM, Richard Henshaw`s opinion

"I posted last night after researching the WB machine and archiving process. I had little interest or knowledge of this case but was asked to give my opinion.
As an experienced lecturer in Comp Sci and data mining I can state that there is no error on the 30/04/2007 page. Discussion on the home page is another matter completely.
Sadly the questions asked by the 2nd enquiry triggered a panic reaction and it seems that WB is now desperately attempting to alter pointers to the later date.
I believe that this would stand as evidence of premeditation.

BB with respect your explanations are weak to say the very least.

I have now become very interested in the case and I’m doing my best to read historical facts. I’m not sure that this is a positive result for me!

Richard Henshaw
Guest"

-------

Oh excellent!

With the mention of GCHQ and MI5 too, Kikoratton?

froggy Sun 28 Jun 2015, 10:03 am

caricature wrote:
froggy wrote:
caricature wrote:A WUM I'm thinking froggy.

Most likely but they usually last longer than 3 posts.

But a lot could be said in the three.

Yes, like premeditation and secret service involvement. Just what some would like to hear.

**Freedom** Sun 28 Jun 2015, 10:06 am

I find it hard to believe that a poster with a serious / genuine message to impart would flounce off after a few comments.

Very childish attitude - I'm not going to tell you now!

Guest Sun 28 Jun 2015, 10:10 am

Just thinking out loud here,would CEOP be allowed to comment either way about the page showing the date 30/04/2007 and the words
"Help find Madeleine McCann" during which we are led to believe is an ongoing investigation into the girls disappearance?

Guest Sun 28 Jun 2015, 10:14 am

He claimed to be a lecturer in comp sci and data mining, most lecturers I know don't know their a*se from their elbow! Apologies to any lecturers looking in who are experts in their subject. I think the guy was a wum.

**Freedom** Sun 28 Jun 2015, 10:19 am

For a bit of light refreshment here, I'm reminded of this spoof website about a fake university. One of the courses offered is arse / elbow differentiation!

http://cynicalbastards.com/ubs/

I used to deal with dodgy colleges at work and, believe me, it would be hard to tell the difference between their websites and this one.

Sponsored content