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

by HKP 25.06.15 22:24

@nuala. Archive.org will also:-

[size=31]The Internet Archive will provide printed pages and a standard affidavit of authenticity. [/size][size=31]We require five business days from receipt of payment to turn around most requests. Requests for especially large numbers of URLs may take longer or we may contact you and ask that you limit your request. Errors contained in your request will also delay the process. Please be patient so we can fix these errors for you. [/size]

by HKP 25.06.15 22:30

@PeterMac. It certainly appears that the McCanns and verifiable dates don't mix.

by Empty Chamber 25.06.15 22:32

Its kinda strange how all these monitored sites are starting to gel. Even Ghetto Monk on GLP has unbanned Alex Jones.
As you were.

by Skyrocket1 25.06.15 22:37

Whodunnit - thanks.

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).

One other thing which is bothering me - the jpeg images of MBM being used are filed as madeleine_01.jpg and madeleine_02.jpg. 01 is the 'young' photo and 02 is the 'tennis photo'. BUT as the 'young' photo was the only one showing on the original 30 April/13 May/22 May appeal pages I assumed this would be the one I would find with the 30 April date stamp, but I haven't found it with this date (yet). I have found this date stamp for the 'tennis' photo - work that one out. It would be interesting if anyone out there has the data for the appeal page with only the one photo i.e. from 17 June 2015.

Nothing makes sense including the 31 July and 7 October dates given by WBM. Apart from anything else (including news items being post 7 October) what are the chances that 2 separate misfiles would end up on the same date?

This extraordinary admission of misfiling by WBM must extrapolate out to thousands more mistakes - it can't be that the ceop site would be the only one singled out twice in 3 months.

by Nuala 25.06.15 22:39

@ HKP

The Internet Archive will provide printed pages and a standard affidavit of authenticity. We require five business days from receipt of payment to turn around most requests. Requests for especially large numbers of URLs may take longer or we may contact you and ask that you limit your request. Errors contained in your request will also delay the process. Please be patient so we can fix these errors for you.

Yes, but that says nothing about dates of pages, which is what we're interested in here, unless I've misunderstood why you posted that paragraph?

by HKP 25.06.15 22:43

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

by Skyrocket1 25.06.15 22:49

Nuala Today at 9:29 pm
@ SixMillionQuid

So the first page Steve Marsden identified (mccann.html) had the wrong date when the record was retrieved i.e. the correct date is some other date after 30 April 2007?

That's what Wayback says, and it's what I believe happened as well.

It just so happens that the crawl date span for that page is April 30th 2007 to Sep 4th 2009, so it appears to me that it erroneously defaulted to the first date in the span on retrieval.

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

HANG ON - Sorry, I'm losing the plot a bit. If it defaulted to the first page in the span on retrieval and the first page in the span was the 30 April 2007, your saying that the mccann.html 30 April page was in existence for it to default to. That answers everything doesn't it or is it past my bedtime?

by siobhan3443 25.06.15 22:51

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

a

by Skyrocket1 25.06.15 22:57

siobhan3443 Today 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

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

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.

by HKP 25.06.15 22:59

@nuala. To counter my own affidavit argument if found this which means you were correct

Does the Internet Archive's affidavit mean that the printout was actually the page posted on the Web at the recorded time?
The Internet Archive's affidavit only affirms that the printed document is a true and correct copy of our records. It remains your burden to convince the finder of fact what pages were up when.
Seems a bit useless if you ask me!

by Nuala 25.06.15 23:00

@ HKP

Authenticating the page means it was the exact content at the stated date otherwise what is there to authenticate?

Okay, but note that if Wayback was authenticating mccann.html they would authenticate it with a date in July 2007, because they've said the 30th April 2007 date is incorrect.

by Nuala 25.06.15 23:11

@ HKP

Seems a bit useless if you ask me!

What seems to be missing from the debate, and not aiming this at you just generally, is that Wayback is a non-profit organisation trying to maintain an archive of web pages that have appeared on the Internet, since well . . . . way back.

It's like a museum, storing exhibits. It's not meant for legal cases, it's not what it was intended for, or designed for.

Because it is there, of course people have used it in legal cases, but it's not the job of Wayback to provide irrefutable proof that a certain web page contained certain information on a certain date.

So it's not useless, it's doing the job it intends to do and is designed to do. Any legal stuff is secondary and TBH almost certainly unwelcome by Wayback, though they do, of course, co-operate with legal cases if asked to do so.

by jack dexter 25.06.15 23:15

Cant believe that kate and gerry are not here with us looking for their daughter. Possible the biggest lead they may ever have and they are nowhere to be seen. Maybe they are working with wbm already,
I know i would be if it was my child.

by whodunnit 25.06.15 23:19

"Okay, but note that if Wayback was authenticating mccann.html they would authenticate it with a date in July 2007, because they've said the 30th April 2007 date is incorrect."

Which literally makes no sense. It amounts to panicked gibberish spouted by Mr. Butler after he was told in so many words "This is a high profile case, very sensitive, be careful how you reply". You just can't do that.

The April 30th, 2007 date can be independently authenticated in the code of both pages--homepage and mccann.html by the sequential previous/next date codes embedded in the redirected pages now extant on the WBM site. This authentication extends to the original screenshots of the mccann.html captures of the page and it's date code. In my opinion a judge or jury would have no trouble believing that mccann.html existed on April 30.

by HKP 25.06.15 23:22

@nuala. I meant the authentication is useless if they are not willing to stand by what they are giving you with a caveat of you need to further prove it yourself. I and many others know archive.org are non profit making, they provide a service, their data has of course been used in court of law and I'm sure they are actually proud of the integrity of their machine. As for they will now authenticate the McCann file as July, that is seriously flawed as well.

by lj 25.06.15 23:26

Richard D. Hall wrote:Is there some sort of fanfare if the thread reaches 100 pages?

We all get a pin

ETA: I made the 100 without aiming for it.

OK back on topic

by Nuala 25.06.15 23:42

@ Whodunnit

Which literally makes no sense. It amounts to panicked gibberish spouted by Mr. Butler after he was told in so many words "This is a high profile case, very sensitive, be careful how you reply". You just can't do that.

Yes you can, and he did. Fact is, the first "the date is correct response" from Wayback was a standard reply, sent to anyone enquiring. It was sent without investigating the matter in question in any depth as is standard with many organisations.

When questioned further, and the importance of the date being made clear, Wayback then investigated further and confirmed, in writing, that the 30th April 2007 date was incorrect.

In my opinion a judge or jury would have no trouble believing that mccann.html existed on April 30.

In my opinion, anyone believing anything on the Internet was 100% accurate is extremely naive, and I would hope both judge and jury would weigh up all evidence if it was me in the dock.

Thing is this, I imagine that all those taking part in this debate, like me, want to get to the truth of what happened to Maddie McCann. That's why we're here. We don't believe she was abducted, we believe that was a sham, but we're not going to find out what happened in PdL in May 2007 from Wayback.

It's given us something to debate and chew over, but at the end of the day it's provided no proof of anything, none at all, and it never will. That's the reality.

by whodunnit 25.06.15 23:51

It's exactly like someone claiming a picture I took April, with an April date stamp, was actually taken in July, with no corresponding exif data whatsoever to back up the claim.

by HKP 25.06.15 23:55

@nuala "It's given us something to debate and chew over, but at the end of the day it's provided no proof of anything, none at all, and it never will. That's the reality."

I think it's more what you want us to believe rather than reality

by Nuala 26.06.15 0:07

@ HKP

I think it's more what you want us to believe rather than reality

No, it's the reality, and you don't want to accept that reality.

I don't know why you would think I have any agenda as regards what I want people to believe.

People will believe whatever they want to believe, I know that, and I accept that. And I know that whatever my opinions about this issue others will have their opinions too, and that's fine and as it should be, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

But they will only be opinions, there will never be any definitive answer to this.

The mccann.html page on Wayback has proved nothing, hence we're at 100 pages on this thread, and we can go on for another 100 pages, and it will still have proved nothing.

Sorry, that's the reality, whether you want to accept it or not.

by siobhan3445 26.06.15 0:08

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

by surfmonkey 26.06.15 0:29

Glitch it may be - but it puts CEOP under scrutiny - the NCA should order an enquiry to get the truth - and there has to be some audit trail to get to the truth of what caused the error because eventually historiography will rely more and more on archived electronic evidence which can be trusted to be accurately dated. In this case it involves a question mark over the role of CEOP in Madeleine McCann's disappearance. Surely this requires a full answer to the question of the 30 April 2007 dating on archived CEOP records - if this was a paper-based piece of evidence it would have to be thoroughly scrutinised by the police because of its potential implications.

by Sam S 26.06.15 7:30

Nuala wrote:@ Whodunnit

Which literally makes no sense. It amounts to panicked gibberish spouted by Mr. Butler after he was told in so many words "This is a high profile case, very sensitive, be careful how you reply". You just can't do that.

Yes you can, and he did. Fact is, the first "the date is correct response" from Wayback was a standard reply, sent to anyone enquiring. It was sent without investigating the matter in question in any depth as is standard with many organisations.

When questioned further, and the importance of the date being made clear, Wayback then investigated further and confirmed, in writing, that the 30th April 2007 date was incorrect.

In my opinion a judge or jury would have no trouble believing that mccann.html existed on April 30.

In my opinion, anyone believing anything on the Internet was 100% accurate is extremely naive, and I would hope both judge and jury would weigh up all evidence if it was me in the dock.

Thing is this, I imagine that all those taking part in this debate, like me, want to get to the truth of what happened to Maddie McCann. That's why we're here. We don't believe she was abducted, we believe that was a sham, but we're not going to find out what happened in PdL in May 2007 from Wayback.

It's given us something to debate and chew over, but at the end of the day it's provided no proof of anything, none at all, and it never will. That's the reality.

"weigh up all evidence"? If the police were allowed to do their job properly and "weighed up all evidence" Gerry and Kate would already be in prison. In this case they have done everything possible to stop people from getting to the real evidence and have created smoke screens and confusion at every possible turn, but you already know that and it is my opinion, after reading your posts on this one and only thread that you do indeed have an agenda. You don't believe she was abducted..what do you believe happened to this undefended, neglected child?

by Guest 26.06.15 7:36

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
whodunnit wrote:It seems we are being told in no uncertain terms that an error is a 'fact' and that there is 'no argument'.

I'd like to know if poster BlueBag is a mod and if he has the authority to shut down this thread. Because if not, his aggressive attitude + his post count will surely have the effect shutting it down if mods and admins do not clarify the issue soon. I am only a guest here and will by all means go elsewhere to have this conversation but as the largest and most active Madeleine forum I think it matters a great deal whether CMOMM will allow this debate to continue or not.
BlueBag is not a mod and does not have the authority to shut down this thread.

The thread is staying put until we know for sure, one way or another, what the score is with WBM.

I asked Steve Marsden yesterday to come and comment on this thread and he said he would.

Haven't seen him here yet, though.

Daer GGC,

BlueBag has not tried to shut down this thread.

BlueBag just presented a fact which makes all other arguments spurious.

Just like some of the stupid photo threads which did none of us any favours.

Hey... so people don't like what I'm saying... well argue the facts and don't attack me.

Thanks.

by HKP 26.06.15 7:40

@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.

Log in for more topics