Thursday, June 25, 2015

A Tale of Two Files by Dr Martin Roberts A CEOP Mystery



I'm far from qualified to opine over this latest can of worms for reasons simple. One, I have not been following the debate over this issue. Two, internet technology is not my forte.

All I can say, if it comes down to matters of trust, does one put one's trust in man or machine?

I cannot speak for machines, but I think I might offer an opinion about the man, in this instance, that man  being Jim Gamble, late of the CEOP.

Of course you can trust Jim Gamble, he's a career policeman of twenty five years plus experience.






A TALE OF TWO FILES

The furore over Steve Marsden’s apparent discovery of inappropriate computer files having been generated by CEOP in connection with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, revolves around two entities that were archived, according to the San Francisco-based Wayback Machine, on 30 April, 2007, several days before Madeleine was reported missing – an impossibility according to some, just as it appears impossible for a file recorded on 30 April to include specific references to events the following October, under the heading: ‘Latest News’.

On the basis of these paradoxes a number of scrutineers have concluded that the Wayback Machine was at fault and subject to computer error – a ‘glitch’ as is commonly referred to by those who use computers without actually understanding how they work.

Whilst Marsden pointed up the potentially explosive significance of a premature CEOP-generated internet file with a URL that included the name ‘mccann’, it was another, more expansive document that revealed a chronological inconsistency. Although both were archived on the same date, distrust of the one promoted dismissal of the other and, with the WBM backroom staff now busily ‘tinkering’ with their own records, it would appear that what might have been a smoking gun has had its cordite fumes wafted away. Or has it?

The ‘computer done it’ school of thought would have it that some as-yet-unidentified species of error occurred in late October 2007 (on a date following those futuristic ‘Latest News’ references) which led to the CEOP home-page for that period being erroneously recorded as an archival on April 30 – a leap backward in time of six months. The smaller, yet infinitely more significant, ‘mccann’ file was deemed, by extrapolation, to have suffered the same fate.

There has since been intense scrutiny of/debate surrounding/speculation over the very coding of the files in question, in an attempt to discover what exactly happened to them, and whether Marsden’s first impressions were justified, or not, as the case may be. Equations abound, the academic fur has been flying, whilst staff at Wayback headquarters, after giving a handful of contradictory answers to initial questions, have remained resolutely silent on the matter. As has Jim Gamble, Head of CEOP at the time the puzzling files were created. Perhaps the Marketeer’s dictum (‘KISS’ - ‘Keep it simple, stupid!’) should be brought to bear.

Let us suppose, merely for the sake of argument, that the Wayback Machine did indeed suffer some calamity, of whatever origin, during late October 2007. The first question to ask is whether there has been any evidence brought forth of said disruption’s having affected all the internet files the Wayback Machine has ‘crawled’ in the eight years since (*/*) – a catastrophe almost beyond measure if so.

Answer: ‘You cannot be serious!’

So then we should re-iterate the question, but progressively narrowing the field each time, until we are left, more simply, with ‘all CEOP files ’ (ceop.gov.uk/*).




This is already the test case, since the two files which have given rise to the debate are each CEOP files, and no mistake. One, it is claimed, has been affected, the other simply tarred with the same brush. However, since the files in question are functionally independent of each other we are entitled to examine them independently.

According to the Wayback Machine, on 30 April 2007 the file ‘mccann/html’ featured a single photographic portrait of young Madeleine McCann, together with a provisional link to a second picture. If, however, we consider what that second picture eventually turned out to be, we discover it is a ‘head and shoulders’ view cropped from the now well-known ‘tennis photo’, which Kate McCann claims in her book to have taken on Tuesday 1 May. However smart a computer may appear, it cannot refer for information to an event that has yet to take place.

At a stroke it becomes obvious that the 30 April version of the internet page in question (‘mccann.html’) must have been incomplete. In point of fact, no ‘screen shot’ of this file’s 30 April output has succeeded in revealing more than one photograph, plus a ‘broken link’ icon in respect of the other. Subsequent archivals by the WBM (on 13 May, for instance) include both pictures, which are reproduced without demur.

Had this file been ‘crawled’ in October and wrongly assigned as an April 30 record, then what until recently appeared to the viewer to be the earliest known instance of the file ‘mccann.html’, should have incorporated two photographs. It did not. In reality this file probably did not even exist beyond August 2007 and is highly unlikely to have featured in any October review by the WBM.

Even if one were to trace the history of the ‘two-picture page’ backward in time, with a view to offering up the fatuous argument that the WBM found a ‘broken link’ example only slightly earlier than 13 May and proceeded to drop that into its 30 April folder instead, that contention is still untenable, since the ‘crawls’ conducted by the WBM in this instance were two weeks apart (30 April – 13 May). As far as ‘computer glitch’ proponents are concerned, 13 May should have marked the file’s very first appearance among the WBM’s records, given that CEOP did not join the party until officially invited to do so on 7 May.

Instead we are brought back to the ‘Marsden scenario’ that first set alarm bells ringing. Until such time as its ‘minders’ completely re-work their indexing in this regard (and they will) the WBM self-evidently contained a record of CEOP file ‘mccann.html’ archived on 30 April, 2007 – four days before Madeleine McCann was reported missing. Even if we dismiss its contents, the very existence of such an entity is potentially incriminating.

But…but…but…how do we explain the contradictions inherent in that other file – the CEOP home-page with its Latest News from October? How did that come to be identified with April?

Answer: By accident or design. It matters not a jot, since we have already adduced evidence to establish that not all CEOP files were affected by whatever caused their home-page to experience a premonition. Whatever befell that page structure, it was an event unique to that document and basically irrelevant to the focal issue, which requires resolution.

Instead of bombarding the keepers of the Wayback Machine with questions concerning a problem they have never experienced, we should be asking Jim Gamble to explain how and why CEOP came to be preparing a ‘find me’ campaign for a girl who had yet to go missing.

Martin Roberts




45 comments:

Himself said...

Please address your comments to Martin Roberts and not I.

For Richard Hall if you show your face.

One for your "twats" list, Jim Al-Khalili.

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2011/09/fukushima-desolation-worst-since.html

Anonymous said...

Mr. Roberts, the homepage capture is being hotly contested because the Wayback Machine crawlers do not pick up 'orphan pages', that is, pages that have no links to it for people to find it. The April 30th capture of the homepage, with it's link to the mccann.html page, is the only possible way the crawlers could have found it. Thus if debunkers can discredit the homepage the mccann.page falls by the wayside right along with it.

The problem with this argument is that even the pages that redirect from the former April 30 capture links--mccann.html to May 13 and the homepage to May 14--both have sequential codes embedded making it clear that the closest previous captures of both pages was April 30, 2007.

whodunnit

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit

I appreciate your comments, which I should like to address in reverse order if I may:

"The problem...is that even the pages that redirect from the former April 30 capture links--mccann.html to May 13 and the homepage to May 14--both have sequential codes embedded making it clear that the closest previous captures of both pages was April 30, 2007."

We seem therefore to be in agreement as regards your last point.

Earlier however:

"(Thus) if debunkers can discredit the homepage the mccann.page falls by the wayside right along with it."

May I suggest you re-read my comments from the top?

If the files in question were the digital equivalent of Siamese twins then they should indeed have suffered the same fate. I would contend that, on the strength of what we can see of each of them, they did not.

Therefore fervent(desperate?)extrapolation from one to the other is simply not justified.

We are entitled to ignore the one 'iffy' file in 450 billion (or whatever the number is) and focus attention on the smaller one that really needs explaining.

Martin Roberts

Care Ren said...

Maybe Madeline is trying to tell us something from the Grave

Anonymous said...

I fully agree with you Dr. Roberts but I think we both know how propaganda and misinformation works. If one leg of the truth is a little wobbly then debunkers latch on to it and feel free to spin it as if the entire table has crashed to the ground. Unfortunately, most good people and true go along with this tactic so that it becomes difficult to get any nuanced points across. It's doubly difficult when those who aren't technically savvy are persuaded by appeals to authority. Already, discussions on Madeleine FB groups have been shut down by 'explanations' that either make no sense, like Mr. Butler of WayBack Machine saying the page in question is actually from July which is absurd, or are entirely lacking. A crucial issue blown away by a wave of the hand and authoritative declarations with no credible evidence to back them up.

This is why I think voices like yours are crucial to keeping this debate alive and for that I thank you sincerely.

whodunnit

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I should have said 'disinformation' rather than MISinformation which can be mistaken information based on a misreading of the facts. DISinformation is deliberate lies.

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit 18.05

No need of thanks. Given the importance of the topic I found it impossible to remain silent. I am also at an age when I take very considerable exception to the 'I can shout loudest' school of argument.

There are at least three of us on the same page though: You, me, and Himself, who had the good grace to post my observations.

FWIW I suspect the October dates on an April page to have resulted not
from an October 'capture' as such, but from an October 'edit', which the WBM has been obliged to read into its replay of 30 April ever since the constituent(s) of the file originally 'called' for the purposes of that reconstruction were written out, i.e. replaced.

Regards

Martin Roberts

Anonymous said...

whodunit said:-

"It's doubly difficult when those who aren't technically savvy are persuaded by appeals to authority."

I have little technical know how or knowledge but I am too long in the tooth to be persuaded or bullied by authority, especially about what to think, so there is hope for open minds even if some remain private for the time being.

Anonymous said...

I meant to add my thanks for your riveting articles over the years Dr Roberts.

Anonymous said...

Hmm, you may have a glitch Himself, lol. A long reply of mine to Dr. Roberts seems to have disappeared. If the reply was unacceptable to your good self let me know and I won't paste it back in. [learned long ago to copy posts]

To anon. at 19:00: Indeed there is hope for open minds and thank God for that.

Anonymous said...


@WaybackMachine @CEOPUK #mccann Can anyone in your services explain why data was altered on thisPage since yesterday?

http://bit.ly/1LsmKRt

No one can explain, apparently.


From a career policeman of twenty five years plus experience:

its def some kind of error the 'deluded' will/have gone into conspiracy overdrive. Some suggesting we knew in advance #crazy

https://twitter.com/JimGamble_INEQE/status/611446745566945280


Not suggesting anything, but I still wonder how Jim Gamble knew that Madeleine is now six years old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=979u-xbPHrQ
(at the 0:29 mark)


"Madeleine will now be six years old" is a written statement which opens the CEOP vid. 'A minute for Madeleine'. Gamble is actually heard to say however, "Madeleine is now six years old". Altogether less tentative. Martin Roberts


Thank you for your interesting articles Mr. Roberts.

Maren

Anonymous said...

Which word is the most appropriate I wonder, conspiracists or conspirators?

Anonymous said...

Maren,

I hadn't seen this! Thanks for posting:

Some suggesting we knew in advance #crazy

In advance of what? A stranger abduction? I don't think anyone has suggested that.

Agnos

Himself said...

Copied from email, I don't know where your comment went.


Dr. Roberts

It is true that the second correspondent who inquired of WBM the day after this story broke was VERY indiscreet and called their attention to the homepage capture when nobody was actually talking about or concerned with the homepage as yet. 'This is a high profile case, very sensitive, so be careful how you reply' or words to that effect were used. Unbelievable. Of course their response was to backtrack on their earlier confirmation of the accuracy of the capture, the responding rep saying as how he did not have the same information from the first correspondent as that given to him by the second correspondent, namely the homepage. However, for several days people took this to mean the 2nd correspondent had somehow provided the WBM rep with a fuller more 'truthful' picture of mccann.html while in reality she had only given him a DIFFERENT picture, ie the homepage, and had failed to inform her audience of this fact. People were still confused days later as to which page had supposedly been disavowed by WBM.

This is how important discussions are derailed.

It hardly matters if the issue continues to be discussed in isolated pockets of the internet. Critical mass has been diverted, and quite skillfully if you ask me.


In my opinion, which I've stated previously elsewhere, the October news links on an April capture of the homepage could have two explanations; 1. dynamic content which is explained in the FAQ as links that automatically update or 2. WBM captured CEOP red handed in the middle of a hasty, sloppy edit.

However, to your point, if you'll notice most of the 'news items' in their sidebar around that time all had somewhat generic titles. If you'll also notice, 'listen to the podcast' appears next to the link of October 23rd in the screenshot of the capture in question. This is completely unlike other links provided. Further, if you google this particular CEOP news item by date there IS NO podcast to listen to.

Even further, there are no captures of the homepage past October 12 in 2007 so I fail to understand how a capture that was never made somehow got misfiled into yet ANOTHER file that supposedly never existed. Coincidentally I'm sure, nobody made a screenshot of the code embedded in the erroneous October capture.

There is simply no way around the sequential date codes---codes depicting the previous and next captures---inside the pages that remain, both the May 14 homepage and the May 13 mccann.html. They are self corroborating.

whodunnit

Anonymous said...

If we refuse to consider the expertise that others might bring to bear upon the supply of material data then where are we? We're back with Dr Sharon Leal and her mantic psychology, presumably so profound that data can be sidelined in it's entirety: 100% innocent.!
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id479.html

And since it appears to be the standards of reasoning and logic that some are questioning in relation to this matter, then there is this from a true logician:

Seek simplicity but distrust it.

The silly question is the first intimation of some totally new development. ~ A N Whitehead
(Antidote to all those who believe Occam to be the first and last word!)

And so given the below:

no way around the sequential date codes---codes depicting the previous and next captures---inside the pages that remain, both the May 14 homepage and the May 13 mccann.html. They are self corroborating. (thank you whodunnit)

My silly question would be to ask for the statistical likelihood of it's being these files, from that site, at that time that were so "glitchy".

A very, very remote chance? Would that be fair?

Agnos

Martin Roberts said...

@Agnos 08.02

Hi there

Thank you for your responses, considered as always.

Please don't challenge me to 'do the maths' but in answer to your 'silly' question (which, by the way, is nothing of the sort) the probability to which you allude is likely to be of a similar order to that attaching to the question of our planet's uniqueness in the universe (or our galaxy at the very least).

If the Wayback Machine tripped up in relation to 30 April then I'll expect to see a flock of piglets overhead any second now.

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit 02.11

Thank goodness 'H' retrieved your mislaid comment!

Yes, the saga of the impetuous ones letting the cat out of the bag is something of a minor tragedy in its own right.

The 'home-page' issue is now my current pre-occupation however.

No relevant podcast for 23 Oct. 2007 but the BBC put out something of possible relevance the day before (22nd) it would seem, whilst CEOP reference a 23 October Press Release here:

https://www.ceop.police.uk/Media-Centre/Press-releases/2007/

You are clearly much closer to the coding issue than I and I thank you for sharing your expertise. In relation to those 'sequential' pointers, we seem to have confirmation of the home-page's referring forward (from the 27th April) and 'McCann.html' referring backwards (from 13/14 May) to 30 April 07.

Is there any evidence, that you know of, of the home page's looking both ways, so to speak?

If such an 'error' were demonstrable within the home page file(s) entirely, it would make the claims for false indexing look even more ridiculous than they are at present.

Regards

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit

…Oh, and a message for onward transmission to ‘Blue Bag’, who has written elsewhere:

“Steve said it was "probably a mistake" in about his third post in the Facebook thread.

“And this DOES prove the WBM was in error even though people were insisting WBM couldn't possibly make errors.

“How hard is it for people to admit even that?

“But it's a provable fact not an opinion.”

Just as Carlsberg is “probably the best lager in the world”, a claim hotly disputed by Skol devotees no doubt.

Proof positive? I think not.

Also:

Re: A Tale of Two Files by Dr Martin Roberts A CEOP Mystery 25th June 2015

BlueBag Today at 12:34 pm

I'm far from qualified to opine over this latest can of worms for reasons simple. One, I have not been following the debate over this issue. Two, internet technology is not my forte.

“Should have stopped right there then.”

Now why don’t you be a good boy Blue Bag and read the piece in its entirety, rather than just the blog host’s introduction?

Even an Ostrich must take its head out of the sand eventually.

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

“Should have stopped right there then.”

I very nearly posted for the first time, as a guest the advice you give bluebag Martin R.

These are not times for arrogance.



Martin Roberts said...

@Anonymous 13.54

"These are not times for arrogance".

Indeed not.

"I very nearly posted for the first time, as a guest the advice you give bluebag Martin R."

For a moment I was tempted to do so personally, but thought better of it. The unexpected benefit of people's jumping to conclusions is that it sorts the thinkers from the rest. Later on we can play 'spot the fool'.

Regards

Martin R.


Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts

Thank you for your kind replies but in the interest of full disclosure I must correct the record: "You are clearly much closer to the coding issue than I and I thank you for sharing your expertise."

In my own defense I have made it clear elsewhere that I am no expert, in IT generally or coding specifically. To expand on my earlier disclosure, what I am is a former prolific blogger who deleted a blog of mine in haste when I thought I was done forever with it's particular subject matter. Later, I had reason to believe another blogger was plagiarizing myself and my sister blogger. This led to an extensive exploration of my former blog, and date stamped captures my sisters' then-current blog, on WBM in search of exact times and dates we had published certain information with a view to proving our case in court. In the process I absorbed quite an education on WBM's uses and limitations.

I hope this doesn't disqualify me from the conversation! At least I try to back up my opinions with actual facts rather than BlueBagging it with repeated cries of 'F A C T S' without ever providing any back-up evidence. To repeat a simplification of the issue, it's exactly like claiming a picture I took in April, with a prominent date stamp right on the photo, was actually taken in July absent any corroborating exif code whatsoever.

In that vein, here is the code string 'prev/next' embedded in the homepage, which I'm sorry my mistake, now redirects BACKWARDS from April 30th to the April 27 but it still proves the point:

Link to screenshot of April 27, 20007 WBM capture of homepage of CEOP homepage:

http://i58.tinypic.com/s49n69.jpg

~~~~~
Just as a point of interest, the 'previous capture' to April 27th is indeed April 7th.

whodunnit

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I neglected to explain that there are so many disallowed tags in the code string I finally gave up and just posted the link to a screenshot.


whodunnit

Martin Roberts said...

@whodunnit 16.37

"I hope this doesn't disqualify me from the conversation!"

Good grief no! I think we've both witnessed confirmation that the coupling of reasoning with 'expertise' is by no means a foregone conclusion.

For may part I was an 'internet pioneer' in the mid-90s,constructing, operating and maintaining a site entirely in HTML, when Java was still but an Island in the Pacific. Technology has long since moved on enormously, but the principles underlying the facilities we all enjoy today will not have changed.

Thank you for your latest info., which I shall investigate forthwith.

Might I ask however whether there is, AFAYK, coding evidence that the home page 'swings both ways', to coin a phrase, i.e. looks both backwards and forwards toward that 30 April date (from whichever other points in time)? If it did, then 30 April would be fixed as a 'marker', with the most outlandish of consequences for database retrieval (according to the theory of 'index pointer error').

The fixing of a given date would suggest that WBM programmers set it aside as a 'default' actually in anticipation of erroneous retrievals. Maybe they thought, 'Let's make the end of each month in every six our safety deposit box'. Right. So what if there is more than one mistake? What to do about the second/third etc.

It's ludicrous (to quote McCann). And to quote him further: "It's simple - she ('McCann.html')is out there or she's not (from 30 April 2007). So she's out there until proven otherwise."

Best wishes

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts

Might I ask however whether there is, AFAYK, coding evidence that the home page 'swings both ways', to coin a phrase, i.e. looks both backwards and forwards toward that 30 April date (from whichever other points in time)?

I'm sorry! Your question regarding this registered but failed to sink in. The answer is yes indeed it does look both ways. The April 27th capture looks forward to the April 30th date and the May 14 capture looks backward to April 30th. Here is a link to my screenshot:

http://i60.tinypic.com/10wld3s.jpg

whodunnit

Martin Roberts said...

@whodunnit 17.51

Wunderbar!

Thank you for that confirmation.

What with further paradoxical dates coming to light (compare the homepage 'grab' of 13 Oct. 2007 with that of 10 Oct., where latest news regresses from the 8th to the 2nd)plus the sequencing relations you have outlined, it appears to me far more likely that the origin of all these so-called 'errors' resides within CEOP rather than the WBM.

Someone left the handbrake off the truck here and it is rolling inexorably downhill!

Thanks and regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts

Indeed! As I have insisted several times, given the sequential codes, the simplest explanation is that WBM caught CEOP red handed in the middle of editing shenanigans!

Anonymous said...

Martin, whodunnit,

Thank you both for these on going comments. My only knowledge of a Network Theory exists in the entirely different field of the Social Sciences (Actor Network Theory!) - not entirely unrelated to Whitehead. Hence the above quotes.

It grieves me no end to see people involved with a nominally "modern" Practice attempting to adjudicate upon the "truth" of another. Enough said, perhaps.

This is a technical question which deserves it's own answer from those able to supply it. WBM have acknowledged as much themselves.

What they have been unable to acknowledge is any known issue that might have been effecting specific files at that time. This must concern them. Not because of Madeleine McCann, timelines, dogs, or "crazy" theories preceding May 3rd, but because this issue (unknown) must still be at play in their system. This cuts to the very heart of their practice.

If no answer is forthcoming from WBM, then we can correctly speak of evidence, and certainly not a "glitch".

i.e. There was no recorded issue with the collation of said data. It is valid, within the constraints of all other data in that archive.

That is how I see it; perhaps too simplistic, but reasonable I think.

Agnos

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Agnos.

No matter what, i doubt this very compelling data will ever rise to the level of 'evidence' since those working against just such an eventuality are well-funded and desperate to avoid exposure.

whodunnit

Anonymous said...

Just to clarify: by "modern" Practices I mean the various psychological, profiling people (who undoubtedly have their value) attempting, nevertheless, to judge a question which only those with some experience in the intricacies of web data might properly explore (or do they attempti to steer people away from the question altogether?).

It has nothing to do with the dogs and twitches!! Not yet.

Agnos

Anonymous said...

Whodunnit,
Crossed comments I think!

Yes, I believe you are right. There is just too much invested in this, more each day it seems. Perhaps it is a species of evidence, if never presented to a court!

Agnos

Anonymous said...

Agnos

In my opinion it's enough evidence to do two things: bolsters existing theories of a 'prior event' and allows one to comfortably assume in the safety of one's own mind that something happened to Madeleine McCann prior to May 3. However, it is not enough to protect one from libel for saying so and naming names.

whodunnit

Anonymous said...

whodunnit,
Yes. And perhaps worth adding that it says nothing about premeditation, only the compelling likelihood of an earlier event: an extended crisis.

Agnos

Anonymous said...

Agnos

Yes indeed. While others may beg to differ I frankly doubt premeditation as regards anything happening to Madeleine herself.


I think perhaps initially the panic in the immediate wake of the 'disaster' led to many rash decisions, such as hastily loading up an official online cover story before ducks on the ground were in a row. Evidence of the prematurely launched campaign was hastily pulled until a more appropriate date but not before it was captured for posterity.

Perhaps we shouldn't be grateful, exactly, for such serendipity but at the very least we can feel satisfied that they know that we know...

whodunnit

Martin Roberts said...

Agnos/Whodunnit

Bonsoir. I was compelled to take a 'time out' earlier.

Thank you both for easing this discussion along.

To Whodunnit particularly, now that the bi-directionality of those capture references is confirmed, I would suggest that, like the 'over 'n' unders' favoured by clay pigeon fanciers, yours is the 'second barrel' to hit home. Easily overlooked from a distance it is smoking now alright!

Do please protect your discovery to the fullest with as many screenshots as you can muster. The argument that 30 April could have been a randomly assigned 'drop box' for anything unmanageable from May 13/14 onwards is simply untenable.

Well done you for fixing that wobbly table leg!

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts

Wobbly leg fixing brings out the Pavlovian dog whistles! 'Conspiracy theorists! Conspiracy theorists! woof? woof?!'

Next, Alex Jones and David Icke will be name checked and evidence, facts, and cogent arguments will be force fed into the reptilian alien/black helicopter box!

Bonsoir!

whodunnit

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit 00.58

"Wobbly leg fixing brings out the Pavlovian dog whistles! 'Conspiracy theorists! Conspiracy theorists! woof? woof?!'"


So I've noticed!

Thank you for defending my corner over yonder. The genuine cognoscenti however (e.g. 'Resistor' on Madeleine Mystery forum) are behind you on this. So am I.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the whole equation can now be simplified thus:

With the 30 April bracketed by sequential references 'fore and aft, that date becomes 'defined' as a variable/location in its own right. Thereafter no operation can be carried out, either with it or upon it, unless said variable/location is first 'identified' for the purposes of the procedure concerned.

A computer program (which, let's not forget, is a product of the human mind) cannot identify a logical condition that doesn't already pertain, either in consequence of its earlier definition or as a result of some prior computation. Nor can it define as a variable one that has already been determined, only modify/extend that identity in the form of a new (and entirely separate) variable. The most it can achieve by way of manipulation in this instance is to reset a current value, say from 30 April to, err, 30 April? (ETA or so I understand).

I think it's only a matter of time before the archive.org bods realize the situation they're in (if they haven't already) so back up all your data (and watch your own!).

Do please keep us posted.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Himself said...

Bonjour all species.

Martin, semantics again? It all seems terribly vague given that it is a little girl in question and not a missing tricycle.

Doesn't one normally put a date on these things in order to bring attention to the time and place of lost tricycle, sorry girl?

Spotted by Maren and her comment imported from elsewhere on the blog.

~

https://twitter.com/K9Truth/status/611665155592732673

https://web.archive.org/web/20070514050903/http://www.ceop.gov.uk/

20070514

The CEOP Centre is working with Portuguese Police to help find Madeleine McCann who has been missing for a number of days from a holiday apartment in the Algarve.

Perhaps far-fetched and already been said before (I haven’t followed the forum discussions), but why not mention May 3 instead of a number of days

Just a thought. Good morning H.

~


I have taken a screenshot for posterity, see bottom of page.

I have also posted, for the benefit of other commentators here, a screenshot of a Jim Gamble tweet that hopefully will explain the "semantics" thing.

Although not by far the only use of semantics by Jim Gamble, it is the most obvious example. And again, it's not a tricycle we are talking about here, but murder and collusion with Loyalist death squads in the North of Ireland.

You will find at the link a shorter, Nuala O'Loan report of Operation Ballast. Apart from being quite telling, you might also notice that the report does not mention any names in relation to, I can hardly describe them as shortcomings can I; what then, collusion to murder?

And for "Chief Officer level" you can read . . . well, you can read whoever you like.

http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2010/04/jim-gamble-looking-back.html

For more Jim Gamble/CEOP see appropriate tags.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts

I always defend good sense wherever I find it. Thanks again for keeping this discussion alive and thank you Himself for being a brave and kind host. Please keep it up, both of you.

whodunnit.

Martin Roberts said...

@whodunit 16.31

"Please keep it up, both of you"

You need have no worries on that score. In point of fact 'Himself' is currently in possession of another wee contribution from 'myself'. If I'm right (and he publishes) then the proverbial will really hit the fan!

Best wishes

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Faaantastic. I can't wait!

Seriously, I can't wait.

Cheers

whodunnit

Anonymous said...

What a shame Martin has lost his credibility to more Marsden nonsense.

Martin Roberts said...

@Anonymous 9.54

Says who?

whodunnit said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Sorry it is all double dutch to me. If the 30th April is correct with the wbm, that would mean that events were planned much in advance of even then, to allow time for enough plans and collusions to be made for the page to be created on 30/4.

If that were so, then also better plans and collusions would have been made re:- troubleshooting after the `disappearance` of the poor kid. Stories would have been more consistant for a start. Few or no hurried contradictions and changes of statements.

I personally suspect what happened was before the 3/5, but not much before. Maybe a day or two.

Has there been any definate verification of the 30/4 - wbm, as yet? Or an acceptable explanation if that date was wrong?

I did occur to me that if it APPEARED the wbm could make such an error, then a lot of past legal cases where info from the wbm was crucial evidence could be appealed on the basis of the wbm not being reliable enough. Also, info from the wbm could not be used in current or future legal cases. Clearly this would affect criminal and civil cases.
In other words, wbm and similar would become defunct.
That would undoubtedly adversely affect a great many individuals as well as private and various governments and their departments. In other words this may not have anything to do with CEOP, Madeleine or wbm (and similar sites), other than that it may well be it is a set-up, a deliberate sabotage of wbm in order to ensure that dates on screenshots by wbm and others cannot be accepted as 100% accurate evidence.
What better vehicle for carrying out such a sabotage than this high profile very contential case? In the knowledge that someone somewhere would at sometime stumble on it and shout about it?

Isn`t there a technique for interferring with original content and dates of websites? Involving not the usual one, but two http in the `doctored` web address (such as the link address I saw for the wbm CEOP page dated 30th April?

Sorry I am not tech savvy with codes etc. The above are just my thoughts.

If anyone has an outcome of whether the wbm date of 30/4 has been deemed accurate or not, I would be interested. Thanks for reading and best wishes,

From Frankie

Sarah Rose nee Shand said...

For me this is quite simple. Madeleine Mccann was to be used for a future pre planned event named The Sandy Hook Massacre in which Madeleine Mccann became one Allison Wyatt. One sees a similar phenomenon with The Sandy Hook Massacre wherein Google HTML publication dates for The Western Connecticut United Way Sandy Hook Fund site were generated three days prior to the massacre. There are no coincidences. The same people who arranged for Madeleine Mccanns disappearance arranged The Sandy Hook Massacre.