CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

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.

Much though I would like to take the credit, it had nowt to do with me. I hope siobahn will understand when I take the ramblings of a so called expert who can't even attribute things to the correct person, with a giant pinch of salt.

Resistor wrote: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.

Rustyjames has just logged in and brought a totally different dataset with them! It has a far greater number and demonstrates the timestamp. Could be back to square one!

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Resistor wrote: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.

Rustyjames has just logged in and brought a totally different dataset with them! It has a far greater number and demonstrates the timestamp. Could be back to square one!

Is this to do with the 30 Apr having same time stamp to the second?

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

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.

And why wouldn't the second picture "render", when all the others did?

I still have the source code from the original 30 April capture, saved on 18 June. Only now that version is correctly showing both photos on my PC, because I've refreshed it a few times and it's picked up the second picture from a later version (it's also showing 13 May on the calendar bar because it refreshed that too).

The most likely cause of a picture not "rendering" is that it cannot be found - whether the relative path to it is wrong, the filename has been mis-spelled - or it doesn't yet exist.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Resistor wrote: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.

Rustyjames has just logged in and brought a totally different dataset with them! It has a far greater number and demonstrates the timestamp. Could be back to square one!

Rustyjames seems quite reliable, I might wander over there after I have had my tea and see what he has to say.

Resistor wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

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.

And why wouldn't the second picture "render", when all the others did?

I still have the source code from the original 30 April capture, saved on 18 June.  Only now that version is correctly showing both photos on my PC, because I've refreshed it a few times and it's picked up the second picture from a later version (it's also showing 13 May on the calendar bar because it refreshed that too).  

The most likely cause of a picture not "rendering" is that it cannot be found - whether the relative path to it is wrong, the filename has been mis-spelled - or it doesn't yet exist.

Don't shoot the messenger!!

Not getting at you at all, HKP. Just the airheads over the road, posting rubbish and trying to look like real "coders" or "sleuths" or whatever.

seahorse wrote: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.

Now that a more accurate search can be conducted it's going to get a whole lot more interesting again, good find btw, having other sites have the same issue would be critical. We still need to go back to the same question, was mccann.html and/or Madeleine jpgs truly picked up on 30/04, without Wayback‘s help we'll never really know

Resistor wrote:Not getting at you at all, HKP.     Just the airheads over the road, posting rubbish and trying to look like real "coders" or "sleuths" or whatever.  

I knew that

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Resistor wrote:Not getting at you at all, HKP.     Just the airheads over the road, posting rubbish and trying to look like real "coders" or "sleuths" or whatever.  

I knew that

as an Airhead over the road, I posted this

I do not pretend to understand this,
BUT
Isn't it EXTRAORDINARY  that
The dogs are wrong, but just ONCE - out of 200 times, and in 14 different places.
The PJ and all the successive Senior Investigating Officers and the Public Prosecutor et al. are wrong, but just ONCE - out of all the investigations they have ever done
The Wayback Machine is wrong - but just ONCE out of many years of operation and UNIQUELY in the McCanns' case.

What a frightening "coincidence", Kate,
":As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.’

from 'madeleine' by Kate McCann.   [Lower case 'madeleine' is correct.  She did not even give her deceased daughter the honour of having her name rendered properly]

____________________

PeterMac wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Resistor wrote:Not getting at you at all, HKP.     Just the airheads over the road, posting rubbish and trying to look like real "coders" or "sleuths" or whatever.  

I knew that

as an Airhead over the road, I posted this

I do not pretend to understand this,
BUT
Isn't it EXTRAORDINARY  that
The dogs are wrong, but just ONCE - out of 200 times, and in 14 different places.
The PJ and all the successive Senior Investigating Officers and the Public Prosecutor et al. are wrong, but just ONCE - out of all the investigations they have ever done
The Wayback Machine is wrong - but just ONCE out of many years of operation and UNIQUELY in the McCanns' case.

What a frightening "coincidence", Kate,
":As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.’

from 'madeleine' by Kate McCann.   [Lower case 'madeleine' is correct.  She did not even give her deceased daughter the honour of having her name rendered properly]

____________________

As a complete technical dunderhead I agree completely, Petermac.

Common sense is screaming the truth about the WBM at us regardless of what the technical complexities reveal.

And isn't it interesting that furores blow up when certain subjects are mentioned - the Dogs, the Last Photo, the First photo, Smithman and now, the latest poison subject - the WBM capture of CEOP's McCann page, 4 days before the disappearance occurred?

PeterMac wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Resistor wrote:Not getting at you at all, HKP.     Just the airheads over the road, posting rubbish and trying to look like real "coders" or "sleuths" or whatever.  

I knew that

as an Airhead over the road, I posted this

I do not pretend to understand this,
BUT
Isn't it EXTRAORDINARY  that
The dogs are wrong, but just ONCE - out of 200 times, and in 14 different places.
The PJ and all the successive Senior Investigating Officers and the Public Prosecutor et al. are wrong, but just ONCE - out of all the investigations they have ever done
The Wayback Machine is wrong - but just ONCE out of many years of operation and UNIQUELY in the McCanns' case.

I'm not sure that last bit is right. Seahorse posted something a while back that suggested that similar problems affected www.codexgeo.co.uk. If the root cause is an error in the time stamp (rather than the page existing on 30/04/2007) I'd expect there to be thousands, if not millions of pages with the same problem. The difficulty is finding them, but the post from seahorse seems to indicate that they do exist and that WBM had a major problem in 2007

Petermac! Whoever classed your good self as an "airhead"???!!!

The "non techies" (as they are so charmingly labelled, by some) are actually bringing quite a lot to the table here. I have loads to read, absorb, analyse and play with, for when I start my hols week after next, and that's thanks to the research by the good people on here, and other fora.

We've all got something useful to contribute and I wouldn't ever discount anyone's efforts. We were all beginners once.

What I find truly revolting are those who wave their "qualifications" and "experience" around like a magic spell, that means they can never, ever be wrong; or those who look down on those with less knowledge than themselves. If you go read the true story of the Colossus computer (that was used to break Enigma in WW2), it's generally assumed that it was all the work of Dr Alan Turing. A wonderful genius of a mathematician, it's true; but he could not have done it without his team, largely a bunch of varied amateurs who only got involved in the first place because they were good at solving crosswords and other logical puzzles. (See "The Imitation Game" if you get the chance.) And without Colossus and the "non techies", I genuinely believe we would all be speaking German today, and some of us wouldn't even be here.

AndyB wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Resistor wrote:Not getting at you at all, HKP.     Just the airheads over the road, posting rubbish and trying to look like real "coders" or "sleuths" or whatever.  

I knew that

as an Airhead over the road, I posted this

I do not pretend to understand this,
BUT
Isn't it EXTRAORDINARY  that
The dogs are wrong, but just ONCE - out of 200 times, and in 14 different places.
The PJ and all the successive Senior Investigating Officers and the Public Prosecutor et al. are wrong, but just ONCE - out of all the investigations they have ever done
The Wayback Machine is wrong - but just ONCE out of many years of operation and UNIQUELY in the McCanns' case.

I'm not sure that last bit is right. Seahorse posted something a while back that suggested that similar problems affected www.codexgeo.co.uk. If the root cause is an error in the time stamp (rather than the page existing on 30/04/2007) I'd expect there to be thousands, if not millions of pages with the same problem. The difficulty is finding them, but the post from seahorse seems to indicate that they do exist and that WBM had a major problem in 2007

Is it possible someone could have interfered with Wayback timestamp (deliberately or otherwise) by trying to alter a specific file and by so doing, altered a whole load of things?

I'm not familiar enough with the technology to be able to answer you from a technical perspective but logically, yes, its possible. However, it could just as easily be something else like a bug fix or efficiency enhancement. (If indeed there was a problem with the time stamp at archiving. I'm still not 100% convinced that there was)

Posted over by as well, the advanced search troubled me considering I had put a fair bit of time on the 'general' but hey ho off we go again

After last nights revelation of a different data set being available I’ve had a look and can now see the differences. The link from Rustyjames takes you to an advanced search which is much more accurate. The general search that most had been using was the same as in the example of WBM’s faq’s which gave dates in whole days and the number of captures some of which are in a date range.

For example I’ll use the controversial mccann.html url

General search= range between 30/04/07 to 04/08/09 Captures = 11

Advanced search (timestamped) = 9 (for 2007 only the other 2 will be outwith that year)

20070430115803
20070513020901
20070520033832
20070522035225
20070613040605
20070706183353
20070708201551
20070713232146
20070824232043


Given that I had previously stated that there were 3015 urls from 30/04 and the advanced search has revealed 3786 I think I can explain that as well. There were 2495 unique (30/04) dates and 520 with a date range of 30/04 onwards and ‘x’ number of captures, duplicates etc. Now that we have the actual timestamped data it’s 3786 total.

Finally there was a question yesterday from Siobahn about the validity of my stated data due to her not being able to find 10/05/07 in the data, the advanced search gives a total of 40 captures for that day, I had stated 36 and have to admit I was a lot closer than her!!!

froggy wrote:

AndyB wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Resistor wrote:Not getting at you at all, HKP.     Just the airheads over the road, posting rubbish and trying to look like real "coders" or "sleuths" or whatever.  

I knew that

as an Airhead over the road, I posted this

I do not pretend to understand this,
BUT
Isn't it EXTRAORDINARY  that
The dogs are wrong, but just ONCE - out of 200 times, and in 14 different places.
The PJ and all the successive Senior Investigating Officers and the Public Prosecutor et al. are wrong, but just ONCE - out of all the investigations they have ever done
The Wayback Machine is wrong - but just ONCE out of many years of operation and UNIQUELY in the McCanns' case.

I'm not sure that last bit is right. Seahorse posted something a while back that suggested that similar problems affected www.codexgeo.co.uk. If the root cause is an error in the time stamp (rather than the page existing on 30/04/2007) I'd expect there to be thousands, if not millions of pages with the same problem. The difficulty is finding them, but the post from seahorse seems to indicate that they do exist and that WBM had a major problem in 2007

Is it possible someone could have interfered with Wayback timestamp (deliberately or otherwise) by trying to alter a specific file and by so doing, altered a whole load of things?

I can't see how, Froggy, TBH.

I think I speak on behalf of 90% of the members on this forum.... Or probably just myself, but what does this new revised/advanced data now mean...?

Resistor wrote:Petermac!  Whoever classed your good self as an "airhead"???!!!

The "non techies" (as they are so charmingly labelled, by some) are actually bringing quite a lot to the table here.  I have loads to read, absorb, analyse and play with, for when I start my hols week after next, and that's thanks to the research by the good people on here, and other fora.

We've all got something useful to contribute and I wouldn't ever discount anyone's efforts.  We were all beginners once.

What I find truly revolting are those who wave their "qualifications" and "experience" around like a magic spell, that means they can never, ever be wrong; or those who look down on those with less knowledge than themselves.  If you go read the true story of the Colossus computer (that was used to break Enigma in WW2), it's generally assumed that it was all the work of Dr Alan Turing.  A wonderful genius of a mathematician, it's true; but he could not have done it without his team, largely a bunch of varied amateurs who only got involved in the first place because they were good at solving crosswords and other logical puzzles.  (See "The Imitation Game" if you get the chance.)  And without Colossus and the "non techies", I genuinely believe we would all be speaking German today, and some of us wouldn't even be here.

The bit in bold is what convinces me that the 30th April is the correct date for Madeleine's page.

The sheer number of professionally qualified experts who have suddenly crawled out of the woodwork to denounce, with 100% certainty, the accuracy of WBM is highly suspect. Knowing that they are posting comments to people who have varying degrees of computer knowledge from fellow professionals right down to absolute novices, I would have expected a straightforward, easily understood explanation to follow the technical comments.

I freely admit that most of the technical side of this has gone way over my head but I have been trained in other fields that use highly specialised terminology. One thing that was drummed into me is that if you can't explain it in plain English to someone with no specialist knowledge, you don't understand it.

In a courtroom, a judge won't accept expert testimony unless it is explained clearly in layman's terms. How could he or she make a judgement otherwise?

When they get pushed, Poe, they fall back on the well-common-sense-tells-us argument.

That would be the same common sense that once told us the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

@ Resistor, they've over-egged the pudding haven't they?

One or two highly qualified experts explaining in simple terms why WBM may be wrong would have been enough to
sow the seeds of doubt amongst us non-techies but the whole campaign of trying to drown out dissenters is just too much.

Textusa's take on it...

http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/sigh.html

Poe wrote:@ Resistor, they've over-egged the pudding haven't they?

One or two highly qualified experts explaining in simple terms why WBM may be wrong would have been enough to
sow the seeds of doubt amongst us non-techies but the whole campaign of trying to drown out dissenters is just too much.

This is always their way, whatever the subject under scrutiny

"One of the servers broke down, when it reset itself for some unexplained reason it reset to an erroneous time, this was not noticed by any of our technical staff for 24hrs/3days/3weeks, all the captures held on server XYZ between 1/1/1900 and 1/5/2007 are incorrect, sorry for any inconvenience caused."

There you go, it's really not that difficult. Only I've not seen anything like this from anyone so far.

Resistor wrote:"One of the servers broke down, when it reset itself for some unexplained reason it reset to an erroneous time, this was not noticed by any of our technical staff for 24hrs/3days/3weeks, all the captures held on server XYZ between 1/1/1900   and 1/5/2007 are incorrect, sorry for any inconvenience caused."

There you go, it's really not that difficult.  Only I've not seen anything like this from anyone so far.

Absolutely.
It could easily have been caused by a dud battery on a server motherboard.
The strange thing is that this wasn't noticed by WBM for 8 years!