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

by Guest 26.06.15 7:43

SixMillionQuid wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:So Wayback did not archive the result of webcrawl of the CEOP website on 30 April 2007 with mccann.html as the filename?

If all mccann related web pages were created after this date then I'm struggling to understand how the Wayback machine 'invented' the 30 April 2007 archive date.

No takers then?

Why would the Wayback machine backdate a webcrawl back to the 30 April 2007?

Er.. bad application programming.. bad program temporary fix... bad system date configuration.... net work problem... database problem...

Could be any number of reasons that people who work in software support will tell you, some are notoriously hard to track down.

The fact is the WBM was in error right at the start before anyone contacted them.

I keep saying it but it's the truth, it's there on the Steve Marsden facebook page.

An explanation of why it happened would be nice, it doesn't change the fact.

by Guest 26.06.15 7:44

HKP wrote:@nuala. The reality (at the moment) is that there is an index with a time stamp of 30/04 which includes McCann.html. Any other reality has not been fully established yet.

But it has.

How can anyone possibly deny that WBM was in error on the 17th June?

Unless you think Steve Marsden is also "in on it"?

by HKP 26.06.15 7:47

@Bluebag:-"BlueBag just presented a fact which makes all other arguments spurious."
Bluebag always forgets to add 'in his opinion' and presents his theory as fact, and that's a fact

by Guest 26.06.15 7:50

Nuala wrote:@ Cloak'nDagger

The time has to be constant .It is a robot. It cannot crawl [grab] material relating to the future.

No, but it can grab material, store it, then add the wrong date when it's retrieved.

Or assign a wrong date when it archives it.

And that MUST have happened for the October page at least and almost certainly the other pages as well because they are associated with the same time stamp.

by Guest 26.06.15 7:51

HKP wrote:@Bluebag:-"BlueBag just presented a fact which makes all other arguments spurious."
Bluebag always forgets to add 'in his opinion' and presents his theory as fact, and that's a fact

This is not an opinion it's a fact.

The fact is there to see.

Do you deny the fact that the WBM was in error on 17th June 2015?

by Guest 26.06.15 7:54

Nuala wrote:Software is only as good as those that program it, so there will always be times when it doesn't work properly. It's not some infallible thing that is never wrong.

As we all know

We certainly do.

by Guest 26.06.15 7:58

HKP wrote:@nuala. Authenticating the page means it was the exact content at the stated date otherwise what is there to authenticate?

This is probably the fifth time I posted this and it just goes right over people's heads.

Some archived web pages are self authenticating in terms of dates regardless of the time stamp assigned by WBM - because of their content - just like the October CEOP page.

In fact a page may be archived by WBM on a certain date but the date in the content of the page may be different (ie. an earlier dated forum posting or blog) and THAT could be the key piece of evidence in the court case not the WBM date.

by HKP 26.06.15 8:05

@Bluebag. Do us all a favour and bring Stevo's definitive evidence across here.

by Guest 26.06.15 8:10

HKP wrote:@Bluebag. Do us all a favour and bring Stevo's definitive evidence across here.

I did.. at least 3 times.

by HKP 26.06.15 8:11

@Bluebag:- the authentication process from archive.com is them providing a print out of the page saying that it is a true copy of what they have. The confirmation of a true date is then up to whoever asked for the authentication certificate. It's in their legal FAQs

by HKP 26.06.15 8:15

@Bluebag; I'll admit to being lost here, as far as I can see you've provided the ceop page with the October date on it. Have I missed something?

by Guest 26.06.15 8:16

BlueBag wrote:The fact.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

WBM is wrong.

For the benefit of those not following the thread properly.

by Skyrocket1 26.06.15 8:18

Skyrocket1 Yesterday at 10:37 pm

I have found the 27 April 2007 ceop.gov.uk page archived on the website 'archive.is'. If you open it up for some reason it states 'redirected' from the 30 April 2007 date stamp - no idea why it would link back to this (I didn't input it at any stage).

--------------------

siobhan3443 Yesterday at 10:51 pm
Skyrocket1

it gives the 13/may date because it was searched and archived by archive.is after waybackmachine changed it. i know because i submitted it to be archived the other day - you can submit links to be archived. there was nothing archived on that site until i ran the page, waybackmachine had change the link before i ran it

--------------------

Skyrocket1

Thanks Siobhan - but yours isn't the record I was talking about. There was one on there prior to yours which is dated the 27 April 2007. This is the one with the 803 link and I think it was already on there before all this blew up.

------------------

Post siobhan3445 Today at 12:08 am
Skyrocket1

that 2007 page is archived through archive.org (wbm). i ran the 2007 page through wbm, then ran that through archive.is and it[url=#9803386] linked[/url] back to the original page. I was archiving the archive!
archive.is didn't crawl that in 2007, they got their info for that page from wbm.

check the link where it says redirected from

-------------------

Siobhan - I think we're talking at cross purposes. I know the files on archive.is originated from archive.org. The file on archive.is, that I was discussing, is the 27 April home page file. There is now a 13 May file also, which you say that you uploaded, but this is the appeal page not the home page. The 27 April page has no reference to 13 May on it and I actually haven't brought the 13 May up at all! The 27 May home page (and 'your' 13 May appeal page) does refer to the 20070430115803 date stamp as - 'redirected from', and I was just wondering if anyone knew why. I don't recognise the url you give - url=#9803386. I do screenshot everything.

by **Jill Havern** 26.06.15 8:25

BlueBag wrote:
BlueBag wrote:The fact.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

WBM is wrong.
For the benefit of those not following the thread properly.

I've put this screenshot on a new topic so perhaps everyone can now go to that thread to continue. This thread will automatically lock very soon anyway now it's gone past 100 pages.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Log in for more topics