CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

Poppy wrote:Not I Not nor I

You've completely lost me!

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Poppy wrote:Not I Not nor I

You've completely lost me!

Can I have an explanation for this please?

http://www.ceop.gov.uk/html/mccannhongkongphooey


See my previous post for screen capture.

I genuinely do not have a clue what's going on????!

ETA that's an old ceop page from what I can see, genuinely stumped other than someone is up to mischief

seahorse wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Is there an easy way for me to upload a pdf file from a local drive, I'd like to demonstrate why the Madeleine 01 & 02 jpg are imo sound for captured on 30/04

Did you do this?




If so, how? Are you experimenting with Heritrix?

Just to re-iterate I followed the Dr MR search link downloaded the result and saved in excel, at no time have I uploaded anything knowingly and if done inadvertently then my forum username wouldn't have appeared (why would it) It's actually a bit concerning tbh

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Poppy wrote:Not I Not nor I

You've completely lost me!

It's either the Royal "We" or he's referring to himself and other members of CEOP.

No mystery for once!

HKP. 

That seems most bizarre and as you say very concerning.

Looks like someone is trying to discredit you.. Bit of a coincidence it happens after you politely refused to rejoin CMoMM. 

Funnily enough, just like another coincidence when a malicious post was aimed at Aquila over there. The mods then set about saying I was responsible. (apparently set up a whole new thread about it too). They can't possibly prove it of course as they know and I know it's not true.

Doesn't stop them lying and discrediting though.

It's a funny old world is the forum world.

Anyway, back on topic.

Hope you get to the bottom of it HKP.

Probably not relevant but how can something be archived so soon? I thought there was a 6 month delay or is that something else?

Hongkong Phooey wrote:I genuinely do not have a clue what's going on????!

ETA that's an old ceop page from what I can see, genuinely stumped other than someone is up to mischief

Ah, I guess I know what happened.

If you put an URL in the search box and the URL does not exist the following comes up:



And then if you save the URL it creates an entry into the Internet Archive.

Maybe you had two windows open, and whilst typing your user name in window 1 (or so you thought), you were actually typing it in window 2 behind the http://www.ceop.gov.uk/html/mccann URL.


If you click on http://www.ceop.gov.uk/html/mccannhongkongphooey you get:

"Got an HTTP 302 response at crawl time

Redirecting to...

http://www.ceop.police.uk/"

Because the page doesn't exist.

seahorse wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:I genuinely do not have a clue what's going on????!

ETA that's an old ceop page from what I can see, genuinely stumped other than someone is up to mischief

Ah, I guess I know what happened.

If you put an URL in the search box and the URL does not exist the following comes up:



And then if you save the URL it creates an entry into the Internet Archive.

Maybe you had two windows open, and whilst typing your user name in window 1 (or so you thought), you were actually typing it in window 2 behind the http://www.ceop.gov.uk/html/mccann URL.

You know what I think you may be just about right. For some reason the download took ages, however the time of 13:39 doesn't quite work, I'm now more inclined to say I've inadvertently done something.

Thanks very much Seahorse

You know what I think you may be just about right. For some reason the download took ages, however the time of 13:39 doesn't quite work, I'm now more inclined to say I've inadvertently done something.

Thanks very much Seahorse

If the time doesn't work, then it is also possible that someone else did it inadvertently. Same scenario with the two windows open. Perhaps they were googling your user name. Still all completely innocent.

seahorse wrote:

You know what I think you may be just about right. For some reason the download took ages, however the time of 13:39 doesn't quite work, I'm now more inclined to say I've inadvertently done something.

Thanks very much Seahorse

If the time doesn't work, then it is also possible that someone else did it inadvertently. Same scenario with the two windows open. Perhaps they were googling your user name. Still all completely innocent.

All cleared up now. It was Syn who'd dun it to try to prove a point to you.

"I did it to prove a point to HPK that relying on the WB Source Directory is futile. He posted either here or on the other forum that he was convinced WB had now added http://www.ceop.gov.uk/html/mccann on 27 June 2015 and http://www.ceop.gov.uk.mccann on 17 June 2007. They hadn't. Someone had simply typed in that url themselves either deliberately or by mistake and added it to the WBM but of course as neither exist they just redirect to www.ceop.police.uk

Anything can be added as I demonstrated by adding hongkongphooey to the archive saved on 27th June for http://www.ceop.gov.uk/html/mccann "

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11429p420-steve-marsden-s-wbm-screenshot-the-ceop-home-page-for-april-30-2007-also-refers-to-missing-madeleine

Wish she'd have let him know in advance

dogs don't lie wrote:Wish she'd have let him know in advance

That would have been the decent thing to have done. Or she could have used something else instead of his user name.

seahorse wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:Wish she'd have let him know in advance

That would have been the decent thing to have done. Or she could have used something else instead of his user name.

Hers!
Ps, no idea with the his and hers part sorry, it's funny how some user names hint towards male and female! I think I'm wrong but that's just me, as you'd all know anyway, probably the opposite, ha!

dogs don't lie wrote:

seahorse wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:Wish she'd have let him know in advance

That would have been the decent thing to have done. Or she could have used something else instead of his user name.

Hers!
Ps, no idea with the his and hers part sorry, it's funny how some user names hint towards male and female! I think I'm wrong but that's just me, as you'd all know anyway, probably the opposite, ha!

Or hers of course. I have no way of knowing whether Hongkong Phooey is a he or she, just assumed a he based on avatar. Apologies HKP, I shall try and use 'their' in future.

seahorse wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:

seahorse wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:Wish she'd have let him know in advance

That would have been the decent thing to have done. Or she could have used something else instead of his user name.

Hers!
Ps, no idea with the his and hers part sorry, it's funny how some user names hint towards male and female! I think I'm wrong but that's just me, as you'd all know anyway, probably the opposite, ha!

Or hers of course. I have no way of knowing whether Hongkong Phooey is a he or she, just assumed a he based on avatar. Apologies HKP, I shall try and use 'their' in future.

I'm a he and am livid to be honest!!!!!

Ps. How could Hongkong Phooey / Pendry the janitor be anything but a he

Pps thanks Seahorse for trying to make some sense of it all earlier, appreciated.

Probably just Syn trying to show how clever he/she/it is after all the other rubbish they have posted.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

seahorse wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:

seahorse wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:Wish she'd have let him know in advance

That would have been the decent thing to have done. Or she could have used something else instead of his user name.

Hers!
Ps, no idea with the his and hers part sorry, it's funny how some user names hint towards male and female! I think I'm wrong but that's just me, as you'd all know anyway, probably the opposite, ha!

Or hers of course. I have no way of knowing whether Hongkong Phooey is a he or she, just assumed a he based on avatar. Apologies HKP, I shall try and use 'their' in future.

I'm a he and am livid to be honest!!!!!

Ps. How could Hongkong Phooey / Pendry the janitor be anything but a he

Pps thanks Seahorse for trying to make some sense of it all earlier, appreciated.

OK Mr Hongkong Phooey it is

No worries. At least she admitted it was her. She could have kept quiet about it.

After today's shenanigans can I get back to asking a question is the tennis ball photo Madeleine 02 jpg or 01jpg?

Hongkong Phooey wrote:After today's shenanigans can I get back to asking a question is the tennis ball photo Madeleine 02 jpg or 01jpg?

madeleine_02.jpg

The tennis ball photo was madeleine_02.jpg. That's why it did not display in the April 30 capture. CEOP was just waiting for a suitable photo to name as madeleine_02.jpg.

seahorse wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:After today's shenanigans can I get back to asking a question is the tennis ball photo Madeleine 02 jpg or 01jpg?

madeleine_02.jpg

Here's the thing Chris Butler claimed it was a subset error, both Madeleine 01 & 02 were found in the same subset on 30/04. If we remove all subsets then we find that mccann.html & Madeleine 02 were found on 30/04 , Madeleine 01 not appearing until 06/06. hmmm

Al Armed wrote:The tennis ball photo was madeleine_02.jpg. That's why it did not display in the April 30 capture. CEOP was just waiting for a suitable photo to name as madeleine_02.jpg.

And it had to be one they could claim to have been taken on the holiday.

So in simple layman's terms......

What does this mean?

My I.T brain is next to non functioning due to the heat. Not that it was functioning very well before.

chirpyinsect wrote:

Al Armed wrote:The tennis ball photo was madeleine_02.jpg. That's why it did not display in the April 30 capture. CEOP was just waiting for a suitable photo to name as madeleine_02.jpg.

And it had to be one they could claim to have been taken on the holiday.

I doubt it was taken on the holiday anway, it's too suspect.

For a barely 4 year old, Madeleine has a terrrible hunch back, her head is too far forward on her neck, and her knuckles (bones showing through her skin) look too old for a 3-4 year old, she should have chubby, fleshy knuckles at that age.  It looks like a cobbled together photo of parts from other people, which has been mentioned over the past years.

I have spent some time this afternoon reading through Dr Martin Roberts comments on his blog -

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2015/06/monday-monday-by-dr-martin-roberts.html

and he seems to be of the same opinion as me that the 30th April CEOP WBM capture is genuine.  Don't ask me which post he mentioned it in as there are far too many to trawl through again, I think it's past the half way list of comments.

ETA:  I've found the relevant comments from Martin R's blog, you have to read down to the 1st July comments -

30 June 2015 at 17:48  

Martin Roberts said...
@Whodunnit 17.48

"Going over to check out the latest from HKP at CMOMM."

Where (on CMOMM) you will find an interesting letter from an IT professor in the USA.

Note the underlined passage, which refers to the primacy of a saved page.

In that context, it is worth bearing in mind, I think, that 'McCann.html' was a relatively simple construct, with a banner distinctively different from that of the home page. Significantly it included the words: 'Madeleine McCann', as confirmed within the code.

People can argue as much as they wish concerning the two picture elements involved, but this banner would be the first aspect put in place (the leading position of the relevant section of code confirms). The words are explicit text - they are not 'imported' (as are the image files), but written virtually ab initio.

Hence if, in the opinion of said expert, the dating of basic page coding is the most reliable aspect of the WBM process then the dating of a page shouting Madeleine McCann would should have been accurate.

Kind regards

Martin R.
30 June 2015 at 18:46  

Anonymous said...
Dr. Roberts @ 18:46---"Hence if, in the opinion of said expert, the dating of basic page coding is the most reliable aspect of the WBM process then the dating of a page shouting Madeleine McCann would should have been accurate."

Indeed. No argument yet offered has convinced me the page didn't exist on April 30th. Each new piece of evidence brings a firmer conviction on that point. I admit a bit of bemusement was caused by the index of my own blog but none of it refers to a blog post that did not exist when the initial capture said that it did.Cheers
whodunnit
30 June 2015 at 19:40  

Martin Roberts said...
@Whodunnit 19.40

Its virtually QED in my view (sorry about the typo btw - read would or should but not both eh?)

All best

Martin R.
30 June 2015 at 19:57  

Anonymous said...
"Virtually QED". That's my view too. If anything, I think we have been a little too hard upon ourselves. Computers do not pluck general states of number out of thin air! There is no command that says "on any given day"; hence, nobody has come even close to establishing this integer, 30042007, to be part of any general class of error. "These things happen" just doesn't cut it I'm afraid!

30042007 is a precise instance of only one class of action: the successful, routine crawl of a file! There is no reason to doubt it. It has met every threshold!

I really am that confident.

I keep saying it, but thank you all!

Agnos
30 June 2015 at 21:49  

Anonymous said...
@Himself @ 19:54---that was actually Dr. Roberts' quote but naturally I agree with it 100%

@Agnos---Certainly none of their arguments, declarations, straw men, feet stamping will 'cut it'. Not at all. Wondering about the poor rabbits about to be pulled out of black hats..there are always rabbits.

Cheers

whodunnit.
1 July 2015 at 00:59  

Martin Roberts said...
@Agnos 21.49

Sorry this is late - I got tied up (metaphorically that is).

A major cause of ideological schism in this debate is, I believe, peoples' misunderstanding of what it means to save a 'page'.

The moment the word is mentioned most will instinctively think of a rectangular area occupied by text and pictures, i.e. a page as typically viewed. What is perhaps not properly understood by all is that, as far as the WBM is concerned, a page is no more than a piece of code returned by the crawler in respect of a unique URL it has just encountered.

In all probability said 'page' will be represented by (and henceforward identified with) a surprisingly modest alpha-numeric sequence. Once that is in place then the 'page' can be considered as having been archived on whatever date it is that that specific transaction involving the crawler occurred.

The rest of the details (again nothing but data or pointers to data) are streamed in as the on-line traffic permits. (I know electricity and gas are NOT delivered in this way, but just imagine a row of houses, each subscribing to a different supplier and waiting for THEIR particular units of fuel to appear within the constant stream of randomly distributed clumps sent down the pipe by British Gas, SSE, E.ON, etc.).

Later, when a 'page' is required in respect of a given date, the initiating data FOR THAT DATE are first recovered, followed by all of the other relevant bits and pieces. Should it not be possible to re-construct the original from entirely contemporaneous elements, for whatever reason, the WBM searches back and forth until it finds a suitable replacement, patches it in, and considers it dated as per the page requested.

I wish I'd thought of it earlier, but a perfect descriptive analogy is that of the London Stock Exchange of the early 70s (a decade and more before the advent of desk-top computers). Transactions were a genuine paper chase back then.

A Broker might strike a bargain on behalf of a client, but then have to wait days (sometimes weeks) before sufficient stock transfers were delivered to meet it. However long it took to construct the total number of shares required for re-registration on the client's behalf, the date of the purchase bargain was immutable, and it would be that aspect one would use to locate any discussion of the process, not the intermittent arrival of transfers from elsewhere (unless of course the discussion concerned those transfers explicitly).

Whatever else one might say about the WBM, the dating of its pages (as understood by IT and NOT as seen by the viewer) is, ipso facto, the most robust of its procedures. Where we have a page whose principal compositional element is a banner incorporating simple text (not the convoluted graphical or other contents of some remote file called to cough up its contents) - simple text that would be quickly written, being hard-wired within the source code for the page in question, then we may be confident that those 'early bird' aspects of the complete data set were indeed contemporaneous captures.

And if said banner should read 'Madeleine McCann'?

Well it does. So we have a page ('McCann.html) archived on 30 April 2007 which, when replayed, reads Madeleine McCann, without invoking any futuristic data capture whatsoever - this coupled with a pair of images that were also reportedly archived on that same date, albeit as individual items in their own right.

Can we hope to get any nearer a 'Slam dunk!' than that, I ask?

Kind regards

Martin R.
1 July 2015 at 01:19  

Anonymous said...
OMG, that's the perfect explanation. Thank you thank you thank you! I hope you don't mind if I copy this to CMOMM?

CHEERS!!

whodunnit
1 July 2015 at 01:57  

Himself said...
There are times Martin, when you simply astound me.
1 July 2015 at 02:30  

Anonymous said...
Martin,

BRILLIANT BRILLIANT

I think I shall sleep tonight!

Though not thoroughly conversant with web protocols and everyday tech. I have spent an accumulation of too many years (in my relative youth) trying to debug code (and still playing around today) not to know the apposite questions: Is this an anomaly? What is it's origin? What might be it's class of error?

Then get back to us. More to the point archive.org....get back to us. They will have known at the very first glance! Or at least at the second...when it became all too clear.

Agnos
1 July 2015 at 06:41