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

Cristobell Thu 02 Jul 2015, 11:23 am

Andrew wrote:Cracking work HKP. You're like a (super) dog with a bone. Excellent stuff.

As an aside - Jim Gamble is very quiet at the moment. Well for someone who usually spends his life, day and night, on Twitter.

Maybe he's not feeling very well at this moment in time....

He really does. I stood behind him at the CSA meeting (he was sat at a table) and his eyes never left his mobile phone - he was worse than a teenager watching his phone and not paying attention to what was going on.

Poe Thu 02 Jul 2015, 12:05 pm

@HKP, Do you have any figures for the number of crawls carried out on the last day of any other month apart from that April?

The reason I ask is that if the daily crawls are random, it would make sense to me that known previously crawled sites are revisited on a regular basis to ensure that they are updated otherwise WBM risk missing them completely for months. If there are other days (month end, 2/3/4/6 monthly or even annually) where the number of crawls is in the thousands then perhaps they were simply caught up in a major crawl rather than a random one. (I hope that makes sense)

@ddl,

CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007 - Page 3 Droopy-o

CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007 - Page 3 Droopy-o

dogs don't lie Thu 02 Jul 2015, 12:23 pm

Tehe, ya see everyone, I can boogie, all thanks to Poe x

Guest Thu 02 Jul 2015, 2:23 pm

Cristobell wrote:
Andrew wrote:Cracking work HKP. You're like a (super) dog with a bone. Excellent stuff.

As an aside - Jim Gamble is very quiet at the moment. Well for someone who usually spends his life, day and night, on Twitter.

Maybe he's not feeling very well at this moment in time....

He really does. I stood behind him at the CSA meeting (he was sat at a table) and his eyes never left his mobile phone - he was worse than a teenager watching his phone and not paying attention to what was going on.

His behaviour and language are very childish, if we didn't know better his social media persona could easily be taken for a teenager. Troll, crazy, nutters, haters, lunatics often seems to be the sum total of his online vocabulary. Not very professional at all.

froggy Thu 02 Jul 2015, 2:40 pm

Resistor wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Andrew wrote:Cracking work HKP. You're like a (super) dog with a bone. Excellent stuff.

As an aside - Jim Gamble is very quiet at the moment. Well for someone who usually spends his life, day and night, on Twitter.

Maybe he's not feeling very well at this moment in time....

He really does. I stood behind him at the CSA meeting (he was sat at a table) and his eyes never left his mobile phone - he was worse than a teenager watching his phone and not paying attention to what was going on.

His behaviour and language are very childish, if we didn't know better his social media persona could easily be taken for a teenager. Troll, crazy, nutters, haters, lunatics often seems to be the sum total of his online vocabulary. Not very professional at all.

Could be that he's not really very bright

Guest Thu 02 Jul 2015, 2:48 pm

Poe wrote:@HKP, Do you have any figures for the number of crawls carried out on the last day of any other month apart from that April?

The reason I ask is that if the daily crawls are random, it would make sense to me that known previously crawled sites are revisited on a regular basis to ensure that they are updated otherwise WBM risk missing them completely for months. If there are other days (month end, 2/3/4/6 monthly or even annually) where the number of crawls is in the thousands then perhaps they were simply caught up in a major crawl rather than a random one. (I hope that makes sense)

@ddl,

n answer to your question here are the numbers up to and Including Dec 07, the date given is the latest day in the month for a ‘crawl’

24/01/07 1 urls captured
28/02/07 12 urls captured
30/03/07 1 urls captured
April as before……
29/05/07 1 urls captured
30/06/07 23 urls captured
18/07/07 6 urls captured
31/08/07 90 urls captured
21/09/07 1 urls captured
24/10/07 12 urls captured
November 0 urls captured
30/12/07 11 urls captured

Andrew Thu 02 Jul 2015, 2:53 pm

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&query=wayback%20and%20machine&method=boolean&highlight=1&mask_path=/

Guest Thu 02 Jul 2015, 3:19 pm

Andrew wrote:http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&query=wayback%20and%20machine&method=boolean&highlight=1&mask_path=/

Well done Andrew you're keeping on the ball Very Happy

Dee Coy Thu 02 Jul 2015, 3:28 pm

I know I'm thick, but what does this Bailii thing show us? Dr Roberts and his commenter Agnos seem really excited about it:

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2015/06/monday-monday-by-dr-martin-roberts.html
(Scroll right down to the bottom of the page for the most recent comments.)

Is it that the WBM has great credibility because of the number of times it's been used in legal cases? Thereby debunking the claims of Syn and Co?

Andrew Thu 02 Jul 2015, 3:29 pm

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Andrew wrote:http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&query=wayback%20and%20machine&method=boolean&highlight=1&mask_path=/

Well done Andrew you're keeping on the ball

Not really. I lost my ball a long time ago trying to keep up with this.

I saw a brief post left on Dr Roberts' blog which referred to it and looked it up.

Been reading through it since.

Very interesting.

Guest Thu 02 Jul 2015, 3:48 pm

Andrew wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Andrew wrote:http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&query=wayback%20and%20machine&method=boolean&highlight=1&mask_path=/

Well done Andrew you're keeping on the ball

Not really. I lost my ball a long time ago trying to keep up with this.

I saw a brief post left on Dr Roberts' blog which referred to it and looked it up.

Been reading through it since.

Very interesting.

Ooh, what a smashing link - I will have fun searching through that later on. (I already know Hormel v Antilles, which is quoted at the bottom. Spam, spam, spam! Laughing

)

Guest Thu 02 Jul 2015, 4:31 pm

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Having been subjected to a load of waffle and subterfuge I though I'd look at the WBM before and after 30/04/07. Data taken from the Dr Roberts link.

You know the mccanns must be the unluckiest people in the world, consider this; the Wayback machine is functioning perfectly normally in the month of April 07 (CNN, Amazon, Yahoo & New York Times all captured ok on 30/04/07) it captures information like this:-

From ceop dowload........

01/04/07 6 urls are captured
03/04/07 2 urls are captured (03/04 date also appears in 2006 & 2008)
28/04/07 1 urls are captured

Then this happens…..

30/04/07 3015 urls captured (30/04 date also appears in 2006 & 2008)

What’s happened here then looks like Wayback has gone bonkers…….

Or maybe not……

10/05/07 36 urls are captured
12/05/07 50 urls are captured
13/05/07 20 urls are captured
14/05/07 49 urls are captured (30/04 date also appears in 2006 & 2007 & 2011)
15/05/07 11 urls are captured
16/05/07 13 urls are captured
17/05/07 4 urls are captured (17/05 date also appears in 2006)
19/05/07 3 urls are captured
20/05/07 9 urls are captured
22/05/07 37 urls are captured
23/05/07 3 urls are captured
24/05/07 21 urls are captured
25/05/07 3 urls are captured
26/05/07 3 urls are captured
27/05/07 1 urls are captured
29/05/07 1 urls are captured (29/05 date also appears in 2006 & 2009 & 2010)

Seems to be quite a number of crawls in May 07 (16) none of them getting anywhere near the volume of 30/04/07 but it must have spectacularly gone wrong (on what appears to be just the ceop site) on one of the very days that the McCanns would want to not draw any attention to.

Sorry for 'bumping' my own post but I spotted an error earlier and Wanted to make sure the data I give is correct.

22/05/07 should be 26 captures not 37
Also the 14/05/07 bracketed info. should say 14/05 not 30/04.

Apologies to anyone who risked their house on the soundness of that post (I can only advise Shelter as an appropriate organisation to help Very Happy

)

Guest Thu 02 Jul 2015, 5:38 pm

So? for us non techie's are we any closer to what the answer is?

Dee Coy Thu 02 Jul 2015, 5:52 pm

I think the general gist is that that April 30 capture was genuine as computers cannot lie and Wayback has been used in many legal cases indicating it's results are considered reliable and accurate.

HKP, does the huge numbers of URL captures on the 30 April which are completely out of line with the normal number of captures mean someone has manually been tampering with the results for that day? Have they managed to add in lots of other days' captures into one resulting in the 3015 captures indicated for that day?

In other words, in their efforts to prove that the 30 April capture was an error by diverting the search to future dates, have all the searches on all of those future dates been included in the 30 April result?

Hope my question makes sense. Embarassed

froggy Thu 02 Jul 2015, 6:21 pm

I have seen nothing yet to convince me of an error. All I have seen is coordinated denial without any explanation of what the error is, or how it has occurred. Until I see an explanation that I can understand, I shall believe that the McCann page existed on the 30th, with all that it implies.

seahorse Thu 02 Jul 2015, 7:39 pm

I found one website with wayback captures that share the exact same time stamp (20070430115803) as ceop.gov.uk.
Literally to the second.

Here are some (hover over the 30th of April and you see the date/time). These all redirect to a different date when clicking on it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070430130933*/http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/
http://web.archive.org/web/20070316070003*/http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/themes_developments.php
http://web.archive.org/web/20070507091448*/http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/themes.php
http://web.archive.org/web/20070314035303*/http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/sources.php
http://web.archive.org/web/20070316174754*/http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/background.php

There are many more but with 19354 captures it'll take my computer a long time to get them.
(If anyone wants to try: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/* )

ETA: My computer did manage it: about 13700 captures taken on 30th April 2007.

What do the techies think?

Coincidence? Possibly part of the same crawl?

I'm looking into some more info on the internet archive crawls, will post when I have time. Quite interesting but not sure if relevant.

Guest Thu 02 Jul 2015, 8:03 pm

Dee Coy wrote:I think the general gist is that that April 30 capture was genuine as computers cannot lie and Wayback has been used in many legal cases indicating it's results are considered reliable and accurate.

HKP, does the huge numbers of URL captures on the 30 April which are completely out of line with the normal number of captures mean someone has manually been tampering with the results for that day? Have they managed to add in lots of other days' captures into one resulting in the 3015 captures indicated for that day?

In other words, in their efforts to prove that the 30 April capture was an error by diverting the search to future dates, have all the searches on all of those future dates been included in the 30 April result?

Hope my question makes sense.

It does, I'm afraid I can't be put in the pot with techie's (I have said this on a number of occasions) so I can only follow logic and analysis with a bit of common sense added in (maybe). I don't know the answer to your question but bearing in mind the usual low number of URLs captured per month (9 in April prior to the 30th, 253 in May & 319 in June then to get to 3015 it may be over a years worth. I personally think that there wasn't a subset error as such and but the mccann. html and the Madeleine jpg's didn't fall foul of whatever happened.

chirpyinsect Thu 02 Jul 2015, 8:14 pm

Can anyone tell me what the bleep this person is on about? I really object to this nonsense

siobhan3443 Today at 6:55 pm

why would not not use the original files which none of these dates appear in? huh, seems strange, can we all get a look at this excel file?

but then the good dr did declare chirpy insects fake link as definite proof
forgive me if i take the ramblings of an it expert who can't upload a pdf file with a pinch of salt

siobhan3443

seahorse Thu 02 Jul 2015, 8:23 pm

chirpyinsect wrote:Can anyone tell me what the bleep this person is on about? I really object to this nonsense

siobhan3443 Today at 6:55 pm

why would not not use the original files which none of these dates appear in? huh, seems strange, can we all get a look at this excel file?

but then the good dr did declare chirpy insects fake link as definite proof
forgive me if i take the ramblings of an it expert who can't upload a pdf file with a pinch of salt

siobhan3443

Looks like an unnecessary attack on Dr Roberts (I assume), you and HKP hidden amongst a lot of gibberish.

chirpyinsect Thu 02 Jul 2015, 8:30 pm

seahorse wrote:
chirpyinsect wrote:Can anyone tell me what the bleep this person is on about? I really object to this nonsense

siobhan3443 Today at 6:55 pm

why would not not use the original files which none of these dates appear in? huh, seems strange, can we all get a look at this excel file?

but then the good dr did declare chirpy insects fake link as definite proof
forgive me if i take the ramblings of an it expert who can't upload a pdf file with a pinch of salt

siobhan3443

Looks like an unnecessary attack on Dr Roberts (I assume), you and HKP hidden amongst a lot of gibberish.

Don't understand "fake link" though. Truly baffled.

seahorse Thu 02 Jul 2015, 8:35 pm

chirpyinsect wrote:
Don't understand "fake link" though. Truly baffled.

Same here.

chirpyinsect Thu 02 Jul 2015, 9:04 pm

seahorse wrote:
chirpyinsect wrote:
Don't understand "fake link" though. Truly baffled.

Same here.

HKP Do you have any idea what this is about? TIA

Guest Thu 02 Jul 2015, 9:55 pm

I haven't posted much on this lately because a) I have been too busy with my real job (the one that pays my salary) and b) I don't really have much to add. I've seen nothing yet that convinces me that 30/04/07 was a "glitch" or "mistake" or a little green man from Mars. But there's been plenty of behaviour from both WB, and people on various forums, that reassures me that it's much more likely to be right than wrong.

Sterling work by the way, HKP. Some of your finds have been very interesting. Do keep it up! Regardless of anything that's been said, or any silly troll games that are being played.

Guest Thu 02 Jul 2015, 9:59 pm

chirpyinsect wrote:
seahorse wrote:
chirpyinsect wrote:
Don't understand "fake link" though. Truly baffled.

Same here.
HKP Do you have any idea what this is about? TIA

As far as I can fathom it's to do with the second picture of maddie which it's claimed just hadn't rendered rather than a broken link which is said to be told to Dr Roberts by somebody which they've decided is you. I may be wrong though.

seahorse Thu 02 Jul 2015, 10:00 pm

Just to add to my post above at 7.39 pm:

Thanks to rustyjames from CMOMM for the formula.

The following link gives 16033 captures for www.codexgeo.co.uk/* at the 20070430115803 timestamp.
http://web.archive.org/cdx/search/cdx?url=www.codexgeo.co.uk&matchType=prefix&gzip=false&from=20070430&to=20070430

In comparison it gives 5207 captures for the period 01-01-2007 to 29-04-2007
http://web.archive.org/cdx/search/cdx?url=www.codexgeo.co.uk&matchType=prefix&gzip=false&from=20070131&to=20070429

And only 310 captures for the period 01-05-2007 to 31-12-2007
http://web.archive.org/cdx/search/cdx?url=www.codexgeo.co.uk&matchType=prefix&gzip=false&from=20070501&to=20071231

So 16033 captures on 30th of April 2007 at 11:58:03
And 5517 captures on the rest of 2007.

Something odd going on imo.

Sponsored content