Saturday, June 27, 2015

Monday Monday by Dr Martin Roberts


Update: I have re-upped this post here: MONDAY MONDAY Bumped Please address your comments at the new post please.



MONDAY, MONDAY

The Mamas and the Papas had plenty to say on the subject. The McCanns, on the other hand, had nothing to say on the subject, either when asked by police in 2007 or since (in Kate McCann’s ‘Account of the Truth’).

And now it appears they are silent once more – deaf to the question of why a computer file generated by CEOP and archived against a date of 30 April 2007 should have appealed for help in finding Madeleine McCann, who was not due to go missing until 3 May! The man who genuinely should know the answer, former CEOP supremo Jim Gamble, has also ‘assumed the foetal position’.

One cannot help but wonder whether Robert Murat booked his urgent early morning flight to Praia da Luz having read the CEOP announcement the night before. Or whether Kate really did take her famous ‘tennis photo’ on the morning of Tuesday 1 May, when Murat was heading home to Portugal.

You see, if Madeleine’s disappearance was known about on the Monday, it would have been when the child was still perfectly well and able to scamper around a tennis court the following morning. Should she then have been extricated from the family’s holiday apartment on account of some incapacity, this might suggest that CEOP also knew about that incapacity in advance.

You can hear the chorus from wherever you sit: “Oh no they didn’t! Kate McCann was confused. The ‘photo was already available to CEOP’s ‘mccann.html’ file (at 11.58.03)! The link was only broken temporarily - until the McCanns managed to communicate the image!” That very day - Monday 30 April; the morning when Madeleine’s group of infant crèche captives actually had an hour’s mini-tennis planned for 10 .00 a.m.

A ‘pic’ prepared within the hour then. Unless of course it was taken on the Sunday evening, following that impromptu social tennis session for newly-arrived adult guests (another truth accounted for by Kate McCann in her book). It does seem rather strange that a moment in time captured immediately following a group tennis session, be it a group of adults or a group of children, should show not a semblance of any one’s presence save that of the subject and her photographer.

And what of those CEOP internet ‘home pages’ that appear suddenly to have gone ‘tits up’ in October 2007? You know, the 10 October edition that cites the latest news to the 8th of the month and the 13 October edition that forgets all about it, but instead seeks to rival Reuters with a reference to what happened no later than the 2nd. Surely that and other strange perturbations can have nothing to do with the McCanns’ return to the UK, having been declared arguidos on 7 September, nor Jim Gamble’s protestations of their innocence a month to the day thereafter, and which were quoted in the Daily Mirror of the same date (7 October):

"We absolutely support the McCann family, they are to be applauded for their tireless work to keep the campaign to find their daughter in the public consciousness."

No, of course not. Pure coincidence, nothing more.

The current ‘hot topic’ though is that ‘30 April 2007’ archival date attributed by the Wayback Machine to certain CEOP internet files; files that make explicit reference to Madeleine McCann, the little girl who was not destined to leave the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, until 3 May.

Whilst interpretation of the information they contain, both visually and in terms of their source code, suggests very strongly that the incriminating date (30 April) is in fact correct, there is a rump of detractors who remain adamant that neither of the two files, which feature heavily in the dispute, was composed, ‘crawled’ (archived), or whatever on 30 April, but that they were legitimately configured on some indeterminate later date and simply ‘misfiled’ by the Wayback Machine, which dropped a stitch somewhere along the line. As a staunch proponent of the WBM’s inadequacies has put it quite recently:

“The same process that archived with an erroneous date will have updated the index with the same erroneous date.”

Note the involvement of a single process, an (as in one) erroneous date, and the inclusion of the latter within the (solitary) index.

Since the keepers of the Wayback Machine have been alerted to these specific shortcomings, they are no doubt busily preparing an announcement to the effect that, having identified the process in question and corrected the system error responsible for appending that one false date (in nearly twenty years of operation) they have ‘fixed the problem’, and we can all now go back to work.

Unfortunately no.

The whole being the sum of its parts in this matter, archive.org will have to do rather better than that. Considerably better in fact. They will have to examine the architecture of their entire system if they are to convince anyone other than themselves that the ‘error’ which has been brought to their attention is confined to the archiving of but two files in 485 billion, since there is now further evidence that it just might have been a tad more widespread. Either that or CEOP have even more explaining to do.

The Wayback Machine is something of a technological wonder of the modern world. Its database is unimaginably large and its retrieval systems concomitantly complex. Nevertheless, at the touch of a button almost, it is possible to establish just how many files associated with a specific URL it has actually recorded over time, even those files set up and administered by CEOP – all 8779 of them according to recent estimates (see following):


For larger image, right click open in new tab.

If one takes the trouble to review this inventory, it very quickly retraces events back to….30 April 2007. And what should we find listed among all those separately identified files with their unique URL terminations? Why, two image files labelled ‘madeleine’, recognizable as ’madeleine_01.jpg’ and ‘madeleine_02.jpg’:


For larger image, right click open in new tab.

There can be no question that the ‘madeleine’ referred to here is Madeleine McCann, as these terminators are exactly those employed within the structure of the CEOP home page as visible (and archived) on 13 May 2007, a construct which, incidentally, features several references to ‘mccann.html’, another data structure that according to WBM detractors was not created until later that year. (Why on earth would anyone program a computer to access a non-existent file? I ask myself):


For larger image, right click open in new tab.

To judge from the foregoing, either The Wayback Machine could be off-line for a considerable period, while their ‘techies’ rebuild almost their entire indexing and retrieval systems, or J. Gamble Esq. had better come up with some convincing explanation as to what CEOP would have been doing with photographs of Madeleine McCann barely two days into the McCann family’s fatal 2007 vacation.

Martin Roberts

Update: Comments for this post have been moved to here. Please address your comments there and not here. Thank you.

144 comments:

Anonymous said...

"(Why on earth would anyone program a computer to access a non-existent file? I ask myself):"

This is the question I have been asking myself since I began reading the claims of error/anomaly.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Ok, this is fantastic but how did you get to the list??

Thanks!

whodunnit

Anonymous said...

Dr Roberts,

I believe this is what might be called a "development".

Thank you so much for all of this work and for such clear explanations.

And of course Himself, once again!

Agnos

(A "glitch"...FFS)

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit 21.58

Hello again

It was a complete fluke!

I wanted to address the question of the twice archived page thrown up by 'Syn', i.e. the supposed 21 November image derived from WBM data.

Since we already know that different URL's can yield the same result (CEOPS 'global' address and the subordinate index.asp file for example) I thought I'd look for an instance of a URL identity that had been 'crawled' in November and that we didn't know about simply because no-one had looked in that cupboard.

As chance would have it there was some comment among the WBM FAQ's indicating the command string that one should input for a complete domain listing. I tried it. Fouled up. Computer tied in knots. Gave up. Then tried again using a character string that looked vaguely a propos. After a couple of mins. - 'bingo'

That's the story. Here are the command strings in play at the time:

The link (as copied from my web browser) was: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ceop.gov.uk/*

The directory source therefore: http://www.ceop.gov.uk/*

Rock and roll!

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

@Agnos 21.59

Greetings!

I fancy the only genuine 'glitch' we shall encounter here is that in J. Gamble's ever tightening rectum as this affair progresses!

('Himself' is, I think, well pleased with the outcome in this instance, given his not so modest dislike of the man).

Thanks for looking in.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

For Whodunnit

Regarding that 'archive of an archive' claim by 'Syn', if you make your way over to p. 56 of the debate on Madeleine Mystery forum you should find an image posted by 'Resistor' at 8.50 p.m.

The picture tells us immediately that the scenario painted by Syn is hogwash.

it is a screen capture of the CEOP Home Page as it is today (its 'post Gamble' era) headed up by a capture date from 2007, which is impossible, as the organisation was still JG's at that time.

I wouldn't waste any more time on that topic personally.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Steve Marsden said...

Dr Roberts, thanks for your support on this. Get in touch sometime. There are other details I can supply to you that I haven't published.

Anonymous said...

FFS There's enough conspiracy around this case to sink a battleship or two, complete with a fleet of Titanics. The enigma to this is WHY on earth Gamble, aka CEOP got involved. Remember that 'virus' appeal message from Gamble|CEOP, some years into the case, as if there's isn't supposedly enough ABUSED children on UK soil to be investigating, according to the MISSING PERSON'S propaganda. But the point was - what intelligence was ever gained and to whom was that information passed? or was it like every thing else connected to this case when it comes to appeals - probably \ ZERO, must have been, if it NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED!

Wherever this case started, wherever it will eventually end, it starts with the fudging over of THREE children, left for FOUR nights, HOMEALONE, in an UNLOCKED, accessible GROUND floor apartment. And the acceptance by mankind that his is normal or to coin the phrase ''within the bounds of responsible parenting''

I'm sure there are a few little snippets that elude this case, hidden under some stones; perhaps it would be interesting to see a receipt for who actually paid for the holiday and when? FACTS like 'what' the PJ original asked about the background checks on the T9, which seem to consistent of rather PEARLE WHITE SHEETS OF NORTHINGNESS!

Much can be written about this case - but the PILE OF FILES should have now been well sorted by the MET - hopefully!

Meadow

Martin Roberts said...

@Meadow 9.15

"Much can be written about this case - but the PILE OF FILES should have now been well sorted by the MET - hopefully!"

Oh, of that you can be sure. Most under the heading 'discard', I suspect.

Martin R.

HKP said...

Most people have skimmed the FAQ's without paying due attention. There are several gems in there however your spot may turn out to be the best of the lot. Keep up the good work

Anonymous said...

I used to read your articles with interest but I really do think you have gone over the edge with this.It's a pile of nonsense - and Gamble will be damp with laughter at your expense.
Are you seriously claiming that CEOP prepared a missing child report, a digital one, for a person at that time not missing? That the details of her forthcoming disappearance would have been planned days ahead, communicated to the police special unit on child protection, and photos uploaded?
You are welcome to your beliefs but I step out here.

Martin Roberts said...

@HKP 9.51

I'm trying. After eight years it's become a case of 'Last Man Standing' almost.

Resistance to the fact of the WBM records is clearly 'determined' to say the least. Some of the feints being thrown are more mesmerising than the 'Ali Shuffle', the answer to which is to keep one's eye on the ball - always.

Regards

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

@Anonymous 10.09

"You are welcome to your beliefs..."

How charitable of you.

"I step out here".

I take it you're a 'hit-and-run' merchant then. Nevertheless, and for the benefit of those who might be drawn to your unsubstantiated opinion:

"I really do think you have gone over the edge with this. It's a pile of nonsense - and Gamble will be damp with laughter at your expense."

I'm not entirely sure whether you are including the computer print outs (as pictured) in your 'pile of nonsense' allegation. I cannot even be sure you're able to read them with any degree of understanding, as simple as they are to interpret. In any case, allow me to acquaint you with the saying 'GIGO' (Garbage in - Garbage out) long used in the computing world.

You will only get a 'pile of nonsense' out of a computer if you first put a 'pile of nonsense' into it. You may be of the opinion that the Wayback Machine is totally unreliable, hence what we are seeing of their data here is a 'pile of nonsense'. I, on the other hand, believe their data to be accurate.

The report illustrated indicates the presence of two photographs, both of Madeleine McCann, and both held on the CEOP server (together with over 8k other items). All of which being visible to the WBM 'crawler', they were identified and archived on 30 April. That is not a 'claim' of mine. It is what the WBM report tells us.

"Are you seriously claiming that CEOP prepared a missing child report, a digital one, for a person at that time not missing?"

Funny, I can't seem to locate any such claim within this piece. Nor this one:

"That the details of her forthcoming disappearance would have been planned days ahead, communicated to the police special unit on child protection"

Although, since you draw attention to them, they are indeed intriguing suggestions.

As to "Gamble will be damp with laughter at your expense", I don't expect Gamble's laughter to cost me a penny.

Truth to tell I don't expect him to be able to laugh this one off, any more than I expect you or anyone else, whether inside or outside of the McCann cabal, to come up with a bona fide reason for CEOP's being in a position to record these data on (or perhaps even before) 30 April; data that, according to Kate McCann, could not have been available to anyone before mid-day on 1 May as she had yet to take the photograph!

'Come back soon now, d'ya hear'

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Quite apart from the compelling technical and statistical likelihood of what we are seeing, might I think this aloud? No original thoughts but:

1. Archive.org have acknowledged the material discrepancy between the account of their archive and the "popular" account of Madeleine's disappearance. They refer to it as an issue.
2. The opportunity for them to clarify this still further, as for example, a technical issue pertaining to their entire activity (oh really?), or perhaps to just a few migrating files (with a nostalgia for April 30th 2007) has been available to them for "a number of days now" (to quote CEOP!)
3. Silence betokens either their complete bemusement at the workings of this great machine, or there is no technical issue for them to expound at all. In which case....
4. The issue belongs to an entirely different class of agency to explore; and WBM silence is therefore appropriate. (Whether these agencies will explore remains to be seen.)

The only other alternative I can frame is that archive.org are so contemptuous of the whole business that they have simply shrugged at it with indifference. Not a chance. They will be as concerned for clarity and communication as much as anybody else. We are not talking about a group of cheap grifters here. They are the skilled technicians of a phenomenal open resource. If they were in a position to "set us straight", then I believe they would.

Very Best Regards
Agnos

Martin Roberts said...

@Agnos

I agree absolutely with your interpretation.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Oh dearie, the cognitive infiltrators with their ugly straw men have risen, blithering and blustering and point missing all over the place. In their noble quest to 'protect' the community from charges of conspiracy theories and keep the whole enterprise inside a corral labeled 'neglect', these ones have pulled out nearly all the stops: you're claiming CEOPS has psychic abilities! You've gone over the edge! Higher ups are laughing at you! Loose conspiracy lips sink battleships!<< that's a new one.

Keep it up, Dr. Roberts. I still haven't heard a coherent refutation of your evidence. Apparently a grab of the April 27th redirect of the April 30th grab from archive.org by archive.is is the new magic bullet, able to leap tall codes in a single bound, piercing numerous solid arguments and yet come out looking pristine.

whodunnit

Martin Roberts said...

@whodunnit 17.00

Good evening sir

Everything you say, and then some...

As a non-participant I probably ought not to comment on forum behaviour, but I couldn't help but notice, today especially, how there are two methods each guaranteed to quash debate:

1. Change the subject, whilst at the same time introducing a goodly number of new topics for discussion that have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the original issue. (That’ll keep the fox from the hen-house for a while if not forever).

2. Re-introduce the focal question (to which there can be only one answer). A silence of six hour’s duration will ensue (I know. I’ve just measured it: 12.19 – 18.20, 28.6.15)

I wonder whether Chris Butler still has his office job at Archive.org or whether he's been transferred to car park duty.

See Agnos (above) for a fair synopsis of their position (if you haven't done so already that is).

Best wishes

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Indeed I agree with Agnos. Wayback are in an untenable situation. Claim error and they discredit themselves six ways from Sunday, as any claim of error would have to be acknowledged as widespread. Craven attempts to claim the problem is confined only to McCann pages at the CEOP website will bring dishonor and disrepute.

If they stand behind the veracity of capture they risk the wrath of the British Establishment, which merely means discrediting, dishonor, and disrepute will be falsified.

Truly, I expect the sound of crickets and nothing more.

Chris Butler I assume has moved on to cooler seats.

whodunnit

Anonymous said...

Martin, whodunnit,
Hello again! I have to say, I find the response of some people to this bewildering.

Admittedly with some reservations, I have always privileged the May 3rd scenario as (at least) a pragmatic basis to the whole affair.

My thinking has changed. I always imagined myself to be an agnostic kind of chap, and I suddenly find myself amongst of group of apostates!!

But as Himself has said: there is such a thing as cause and effect.
Crying "glitch" or "lunacy" just black boxes the question and labels it "thou shalt not think about....."

We know that the overwhelming probability of cause for these date stamps is, well, their date! It is the same cause that pertains to every other item of data contained in this rather large, and rather efficient archive.

It is an issue say WBM. Then silence. Yup, the sound of crickets....and the clock ticking!

Other causal "explanations" (I have seen nothing that remotely convinces me) are like pissing into an ocean. They try to say what "might have been" or "could have happened", whilst ignoring the crushing likelihood of a monumental machine whose data is indexed, accessed and referenced at a frequency that is unimaginable. Truly unimaginable. And yet those files, at that time...and now this protracted silence! And an "issue" unacknowledged, until this affair!

Agnos(tic?)

Martin Roberts said...

@Agnos 7.52

The situation is truly complex. I too have been trying to make sense of it all in the light of others' recent observations. I do hope the following is not too 'dense' a discussion:

Part 1

As far as I can gather, the intention on the part of archive.org is (probably) to present as complete a visual picture of its historical pages as possible. Looking at a patchwork of bits and missing pieces is scarcely an adequate representation of what a page will have looked like to a contemporary viewer.

Should a component required to complete the view for any given date be absent, the WBM will look backwards and forwards until it finds the appropriate data for that space – and drop it in. It also appears to credit the implant with a new (and older in some instances) capture date, for the sake of conformity almost.

That clearly doesn’t mean that the two (or more) components co-existed initially – they may or may not have done so.

Whatever is genuinely the case in any instance, data cannot be recruited for the purpose unless it is identified and sought out.

Hence, even if the image of an archived page should visibly want for something or other at the time it is replayed (i.e., summoned from the archive), the jig-saw cannot be completed unless the index referral in question is first present - and that must form part of the original page context in some way, otherwise the ‘call up’ of appropriate content could not be achieved.

However, the computer cannot know what the contents of the summoned element represents to the human viewer.

(Part 2 to follow)

Martin Roberts said...

Continuation:

Part 2

IF data are retrospectively inserted and re-classified simply on account of their having been assigned to an earlier extant index by their own URL, and at the time those data were first established (added to the local inventory, so to speak), then this is a potentially dangerous practice, as the borrowed content could easily result in a false reading overall (as may yet prove to be the case with the CEOP home page for 30 April).

Nevertheless, by this reasoning, should otherwise discrete elements have been ‘daisy-chained’ in such a fashion, then I would expect them to assume the chronology of the superior index, i.e. be ‘credited’ with the same date of archival – always. The process cannot be a random one.

On that basis, I struggle to understand why the WBM assigns Dec. 05 as a first crawl in respect of ‘ceop.gov.uk’ (total 263 captures) – 30 April 06 as the first crawl of ‘ceop.gov.uk/index.asp’ (total 73 captures) and 30 April 07 as the first crawl of ‘ceop.gov.uk/’madeleine.html (a mere 11 captures) despite the obvious ‘nesting’ of relations as described by their respective URLs.

Either something is very seriously wrong with the WBM’s MO, or these first crawl dates are genuinely associated with the specific pages/elements in question.

Wholly Irrespective of the dates assigned to those data that may be daisy-chained in this way, we should be measuring (As HKP has recognised) the innermost ring of the tree for evidence of when it was born. If ‘mccann.html’ was not present on 30 April then the WBM could not have seen it. Furthermore, to judge from examples of what appear to be retrospective dating, if such a tactic were employed in this instance, it should have regressed to the d.o.b. of its senior partner in the URL string.

Now then: ‘ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html’ is a valid input string, whereas ‘ceop.gov.uk/index.asp/mccann.html’ is not.
This suggests to me that ‘mccan.html’ was not pre-destined to reflect the prior existence of the ‘index.asp’ constellation (ASP stands for Active Server Page btw), but was only related to its bigger brother, i.e. the home page construct.

So what was the function of this small (entirely HTML driven) file – one that scarcely existed by comparison with its more mature siblings? If it only came on stream after 3 May then its first appearance in the WBM should have been 12/13 May, with a possible attribution to the first crawl date of its senior partner. But that would have been December 05!!

For me it wears the hallmarks of a ‘work in progress’. It was not drafted into the home page in its entirety, as there is only one ‘banner’ present, and that is at the top. ‘McCann.html’ has its own, which is not introduced into the larger collage. ‘McCann.html' was an altogether separate entity therefore, tagged onto the site address by default, i.e. not specifically ‘indexed’ as such, whilst only certain of its elements were pillaged.

I fear we really need an expert on the database tactics of the WBM to resolve this.

Kind Regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Thanks again, Dr. Roberts. This really helps me get my head around the indexing issue. I agree, we need an expert to delve into this.

whodunnit.

Martin Roberts said...

Continuation

Part 2

IF data are retrospectively inserted and re-classified, simply on account of their having been assigned to an earlier extant index by their own URL, and at the time those data were first established (added to the local inventory, so to speak), then this is a potentially dangerous practice, as the borrowed content could easily result in a false reading overall (as may yet prove to be the case with the CEOP home page for 30 April).

Nevertheless, by this reasoning, should otherwise discrete elements have been ‘daisy-chained’ in such a fashion, then I would expect them to assume the chronology of the superior index, i.e. be ‘credited’ with the same date of archival – always. The process cannot be a random one.

On that basis, I struggle to understand why the WBM assigns Dec. 05 as a first crawl in respect of ‘ceop.gov.uk’ (total 263 captures) – 30 April 06 as the first crawl of ‘ceop.gov.uk/index.asp’ (total 73 captures) and 30 April 07 as the first crawl of ‘ceop.gov.uk/’madeleine.html (a mere 11 captures) despite the obvious ‘nesting’ of relations as described by their respective URLs.
Either something is very seriously wrong with the WBM’s MO, or these first crawl dates are genuinely associated with the specific pages/elements in question.

Wholly Irrespective of the dates assigned to those data that may be daisy-chained in this way, we should be measuring (As HKP has recognised) the innermost ring of the tree for evidence of when it was born. If ‘mccann.html’ was not present on 30 April then the WBM could not have seen it. Furthermore to judge from examples of what appear to be retrospective dating, if such a tactic were employed in this instance, it should have regressed to the d.o.b. of its senior partner in the URL string.

Now then: ‘ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html’ is a valid input string, whereas ‘ceop.gov.uk/index.asp/mccann.html’ is not.

This suggests to me that ‘mccan.html’ was not pre-destined to reflect the prior existence of the ‘index.asp’ constellation (ASP stands for Active Server Page btw), but was only related to its bigger brother, i.e. the home page construct.

So what was the function of this small (entirely HTML driven) file – one that scarcely existed by comparison with its more mature siblings? If it only came on stream after 3 May then its first appearance in the WBM should have been 12/13 May, with a possible attribution to the first crawl date of its senior partner. But that would have been December 05!!

For me it wears the hallmarks of a ‘work in progress’. It was not drafted into the home page in its entirety, as there is only one ‘banner’ present, and that is at the top. ‘McCann.html’ has its own, which is not introduced into the larger collage. ‘McCann’html was an altogether separate entity therefore, tagged onto the site address by default, i.e. not specifically ‘indexed’ as such, whilst only certain of its elements were pillaged.

I fear we really need an expert on the database tactics of the WBM to resolve this.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Martin,
Thanks very much for taking the time with this. This is precisely as I was visualising the process (known to date)!
Wholly Irrespective of the dates assigned to those data that may be daisy-chained in this way, we should be measuring (As HKP has recognised) the innermost ring of the tree for evidence of when it was born. If ‘mccann.html’ was not present on 30 April then the WBM could not have seen it. Furthermore, to judge from examples of what appear to be retrospective dating, if such a tactic were employed in this instance, it should have regressed to the d.o.b. of its senior partner in the URL string.

One would have to presuppose that the integrity of this nested structure must (logically) be maintained, and that is irrespective of any data that might be "harvested" for the purpose of the "called" display. Would that be fair?

If this were not the case, then as you say, we enter into a dangerous practice. The Archive would effectively become a "dynamic" pool of data. It would be a hit and miss plaything, but not, strictly speaking, an archive at all. This would be my understanding.

As once mentioned to Himself, I'm not a nuts and bolts tech person. However, the principles involved here are not alien to me. As regards the MO of archive.org, these are some of the questions and points that I keep turning over:

Would a team of software designers miss the opportuntiy provided by a "chronological nest", and opt instead for a scattergun? This is meat and drink to these people!

Knowing the competitiveness and the mutual scrutiny that can exist in the IT world, would this issue (and it is an issue!) have gone unadvertised for all of these years?

The FAQ of archive.org is thorough. They explicitly recognise the issue of chronology and date references (within URLs). They must know that it is an important issue to many end users, and so why then institute an MO that compromises their own integrity? Would it not be easier to simply get it right! That sounds absurd I know. But a "nest" as you describe would guarantee this, would it not?

If this issue were simply a matter of referring us to the FAQs, then why not do so?!

Whichever way I attempt to address this, I come back to the same quandary as your piece suggests. There is either something fundamentally compromised in WBM structure, in which case their FAQs are a somewhat less than honest representation of their capabilities and ambitions; or we are right.

The one off "glitch" thesis is too fatuous! And I don't believe that a fundamentally compromised system would have been designed, or that it would have gone unnoticed until now. But I acknowledge that possibility. Always possible to be wrong.

If it were possible to prove us wrong, then I believe that certain UK parties, considerably more resourced than any forum, would have leapt at the opportunity to do so. Personally, I don't believe that archive.org would contrive anything on this point, and yet it wouldn't surprise me to find that "we" are not the only ones to have contacted them. I trust archive.org to respect some very obvious responsibilities here: to the data if nothing else.

I'm not sure if this has added anything to the sum, but I'm not entirely discouraged by the silence from at least two parties! FWIW, I remain confident.

Many thanks again,
Agnos

Anonymous said...

Martin,
Thanks very much for taking the time with this. This is precisely as I was visualising the process (known to date)!
Wholly Irrespective of the dates assigned to those data that may be daisy-chained in this way, we should be measuring (As HKP has recognised) the innermost ring of the tree for evidence of when it was born. If ‘mccann.html’ was not present on 30 April then the WBM could not have seen it. Furthermore, to judge from examples of what appear to be retrospective dating, if such a tactic were employed in this instance, it should have regressed to the d.o.b. of its senior partner in the URL string.

One would have to presuppose that the integrity of this nested structure must (logically) be maintained, and that is irrespective of any data that might be "harvested" for the purpose of the "called" display. Would that be fair?

If this were not the case, then as you say, we enter into a dangerous practice. The Archive would effectively become a "dynamic" pool of data. It would be a hit and miss plaything, but not, strictly speaking, an archive at all. This would be my understanding.

As once mentioned to Himself, I'm not a nuts and bolts tech person. However, the principles involved here are within reach...I think! As regards the MO of archive.org, these are some of the questions and points that I keep turning over: (following)

Anonymous said...

Would a team of software designers miss the opportuntiy provided by a "chronological nest", and opt instead for a scattergun? This is meat and drink to these people!

Knowing the competitiveness and the mutual scrutiny that can exist in the IT world, would this issue (and it is an issue!) have gone unadvertised for all of these years?

The FAQ of archive.org is thorough. They explicitly recognise the issue of date references (within URLs). They must know that it is an important issue to many end users, and so why then institute an MO that compromises their own integrity? Would it not be easier to simply get it right! That sounds absurd I know. But a "nest" as you describe would guarantee this, would it not?

If this issue were simply a matter of referring us to the FAQs, then why not do so?!

Whichever way I attempt to address this, I come back to the same quandary as your piece suggests. There is either something fundamentally compromised in WBM structure, in which case their FAQs are a somewhat less than honest representation of their capabilities and ambitions; or we are right.

The one off "glitch" thesis is too fatuous! And I don't believe that a fundamentally compromised system would have been designed, or that it would have gone unnoticed until now. But I acknowledge that possibility. Always possible to be wrong.

If it were possible to prove us wrong, then I believe that certain UK parties, considerably more resourced than any forum, would have leapt at the opportunity to do so. Personally, I don't believe that archive.org would contrive anything on this point, and yet it wouldn't surprise me to find that "we" are not the only ones to have contacted them. I trust archive.org to respect some very obvious responsibilities here: to the data if nothing else.

I'm not sure if this has added anything to the sum, but I'm not entirely discouraged by the silence from at least two parties! FWIW, I remain confident.

Many thanks again,
Agnos

Anonymous said...

Silly question again....but is it known by anyone, for certain, that the information has been passed to the PJ?
I don't ask in expectation of dawn raids!! But as a measure of the silence, it would be interesting to know.

Agnos

Martin Roberts said...

@Agnos/Whodunnit

Speaking as we were of glitches....


I have TWICE submitted part 2 of my diatribe via 'comments' here and, having just returned from a tour of duty elsewhere, I notice that it has failed to materialise AGAIN.

I shall try a third time now and/or contact 'H' regarding the matter. I cannot simply leave the topic in mid-air as it is.

In addition I have since come around to this train of thought:

What may appear an 'error' to most people is certainly not recognised as such by the WBM computer(s) (there are many more than one involved).

Furthermore, there has to be some criterion by which (apparently inappropriate) 'crawl' dates are assigned, first crawl dates especially.

I have a hunch as to what that might be and I propose to ask RDH if he might test it, as he has a large site that's been running for some time.

Basically, if files identified as extensions of an extant URL are not 'married up' with the d.o.b. of the latter, then perhaps their dates default to the last crawl of said 'header' prior to the most recent, which now features a 'new' extension (think of a folder first looked into when its empty, then later, after something's been added.
Q: Does the added something evidence a history of its own, or reflect that of the folder? We'll see (hopefully)

I'll let you know about that as and when.

In the meantime I should just add that I am no grand panjandrum as regards this topic. My own code-writing days were long ago. (But I still have my wits about me!)

Regards both

Till later

Martin R.

Himself said...

Kiddywinks

Blogger has a mind of its own when deciding what is and what isn't spam.

To overcome such nuisances, your comment being deemed spam, might I suggest you register a Google ID.

https://accounts.google.com/signup

Martin R. said...

@Agnos/Whodunnit

As you may have noticed 'Part 2' has since turned up. (It did not appear when I looked in earlier. Never mind, all's well that ends well, etc.

I've put a request for a 'test case' to RDH in the hope that he can offer another angle on the dateline controversy.

There has to be some co-ordinating (and constant) variable responsible for all this date-sharing nonsense. It's just a matter of deciding what it is. (Just a matter? I jest surely).

Kind regards both

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Aah Messrs Google, I don't know, the exception to my rule of no "glitch".

Not that any encouragement is required, but good luck with the RDH site.

Your above comment (re train of thought) has summarised all of my frustrated rants. There was no error and there is no anomaly, there are "only" protocols!

Happy hunting,
Agnos

Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts

I read part 2 before I posted @14:02! I even quoted your conclusion on CMOMM!

Anyway, Chris Butler has spoken, in riddles, sans any written backup, via HiDeHo, so relax! Nothing to see here, move along, face '[the debunkers version of] reality..

Just kidding, I never expected a firm response either way but this one is written on air with an air pencil!

@Himself

I have a google ID but I'd rather not use it.

whodunnit

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit 21.55

"Basing any further investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, that starts with the notion that CEOP knew in advance that she was going to go missing, despite the evidence in front of your eyes that Wayback screwed up 30 Apr 2007 big time, means you are not doing that little girl any justice. She deserves better than this."

You are a McCann Hater troll and I claim my £200! (err, 'Evidence' m'lud. What 'evidence'?)

I did not realize you were in a position to make the sort of comparison I had in mind. Herewith therefore the complete text of my request to RDH, which you might care to 'action' should you be in agreement with the argument:

There are clearly instances within the WBM record of URL extensions being allocated an archive date which appears to line up with that of an earlier index, rather than the 'junior' file itself, a procedure which, it seems, is not reconciled with reference to the d.o.b. (i.e. the first crawl date) in respect of said index.

These are not 'errors' as far as the computer is concerned. Nor can they be random. There must however be some criterion by which these date histories are determined.

So I wonder: Might an extension to an extant URL be assigned a FIRST crawl date equal to the LAST crawl date of the head aspect of the address, i.e. the crawl immediately prior to the URL's last modification/extension (as understood by the WBM).

For example: (a) http://www.business.org/ - last crawled on date X, say.

(b) http://www.business.org/productrange.html - subsequently updated, then crawled on date X+n

Q: Is the first crawl date for (b) X+n, or simply X? (These examples are entirely fictitious btw).

Put another way - Empty Folder (a) is crawled on date X
Following which, Folder (a) PLUS contents (b) (added later) are crawled on date X+1

With regard to your own site inventory, might there be a folder, say, that you know (or can establish) to have been 'crawled', and to which you added further content subsequently? (This situation should, I think, be represented by a URL to which an extension is affixed subsequently)

If there were a 2nd/3rd/4th 'crawl', what 'first crawl' date would have been assigned to those new contents exclusively by the WBM?

Kind regards

Martin R.

Martin R. said...

@Agnos 21.38/Whodunnit

This reply just received from RDH:

Let's take one image

http://www.richplanet.net/i/starship/s171.jpg

Which I uploaded on 22/11/2013.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130715000000*/http://www.richplanet.net/i/starship/s171.jpg

We can see that it was first picked up on 3rd December 2013.

Let's do another example ...

http://www.richplanet.net/i/starship/s169.jpg

First uploaded on 1/10/2013

https://web.archive.org/web/20130715000000*/http://www.richplanet.net/i/starship/s171.jpg

We can see that it was first picked up on 1st July 2014.

Correction,

first picked up 3rd december 2013. Always the images are picked up on a date on or AFTER you upload them,

Best Wishes

Richard

(I think I need to lay down in a darkened room!)

It would appear from Richard D's response that the WBM data (in respect of the images at least) are correct. In which case someone (and I don't really care if it's Chris Butler or Bill Gates) HAS to explain the proliferation of 30 April dates, even if only to stop the hens cackling!

I suspect also that Butler's aloof turn of phrase is a reflection of the genuine gravity of the situation.

Best wishes from moi aussi

Martin R.

Martin R. said...

@Agnos 15.46

I'm sorry the mayhem of the day prevented my earlier acknowledgement of your eloquent observations - the sort of synopsis that one might archive for posterity, although not perhaps with the WBM (for the moment at least).

I have been riveted by this data archiving issue for the past week or so, since the enormity of the implications first became apparent.

From an entirely objective standpoint, it will make no difference to me personally which way the cookie crumbles eventually. All I wish to see is the truth and, after 8 years immersed in the affair, nothing and no-one will persuade me that 3 May 2007 marked a genuine 'shock-horror' moment in the lives of the McCanns. They'd long since experienced that.

Archive.org may be a not-for-profit enterprise, but they surely cannot be in the business of compromising their source(s) of funding. Who's going to subsidise further development of an aeroplane without wings? I should have thought they owe it to themselves, as much as anyone else, to offer a frank and public explanation of their basic functionality (we are not tangled up in the high rigging here after all).

'Nipping an issue in the bud' is a golden rule of PR, the value of which they clearly appreciate, having openly engaged in it already. Unfortunately filibustering only deepens suspicion and leads us toward a tunnel even darker than we might otherwise have anticipated.

'Of course there can be no such thing as a state-sponsored crime' (Is the Pope Catholic?). In which case we still have to deal with a loathsome group of yuppies, who have since fed the memory of a three-year-old child to the birds, if not the child herself.

It's a pleasure to interact with you sir

Kind regards

Martin R.



Anonymous said...

""Basing any further investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, that starts with the notion that CEOP knew in advance that she was going to go missing, despite the evidence in front of your eyes that Wayback screwed up 30 Apr 2007 big time, means you are not doing that little girl any justice. She deserves better than this.""

Oh my word. So if I understand this correctly, we are impeding the investigation by claiming CEOP is psychic! What'd I tell ya?

Er, what?

Anyhow, without exposing my embarrassing past as a major #1 fangirl of an ultimately suspect work of fantasy fiction, I can tell you that dates are repeated ad nauseum for each new comment added to a post, which themselves are numbered within the url according to the number of total comments to my blog, ex: www.embarrasingblog.blahdomain.commentreply#6789 and so on and on like that, all on the same date. For instance one url indexed multiple times was for a 2012 capture of a 2010 blog post which makes ME want to go lie down in a darkened room. Obviously, each comment is assigned it's own url, aka 'premalink', and this updates itself in the index.

Does this help?

Oh, btw my blog: "1,471 URLs have been captured for this domain."

whodunnit

Martin R. said...

@Whodunnit

It's late. Would you please forgive me if I postponed this one till the morning - fatigue (mental and dextrous) is creeping in.

Hasta Manana (with that accent I cannot reproduce - don't know where to find it)

Martin R.

Himself said...

whodunnit
29 June 2015 at 21:55

Yes, quite.

Anonymous said...

Martin,
Thanks very much for your kind words. That means a great deal.
The RDH tests and, I believe, the structure described above by whodunnit have corroborated everything that might be expected. I would argue this a little further: not only are the presupposed nested references the logical way to organise such a database, they are the only way.
And so we are left with the hoary old "CEOP exception". Of course to a computer an exception is nothing more than:
IF (none of the above) THEN (new protocol)

Lacking such fundamentals , they contort and crash. WBM has not crashed, it has only given a result that some people cannot accept.

And so we are asked to believe that this issue has stumbled upon the one WBM protocol that assigns the date of April 30th 2007 to those few files that fall into it's aegis! And this assignment must be considered to be absolute, or else beg the question relative to what? ...i.e.
false_flag = crawl_date - 3
What a mischievous piece of scripting that must be.

I have to admit to some sleep deprivation as I type this! But I can't see any error in what your article or comments have stated.
This really is a development!

Cheers for now!
Agnos

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit 00.43

“dates are repeated ad nauseum for each new comment added to a post, which themselves are numbered within the url according to the number of total comments to my blog, ex: www.embarrasingblog.blahdomain.commentreply#6789 and so on and on like that, all on the same date”

Does this remain the case for comments posted on different days? (I would guess so but best never to assume anything)

“each comment is assigned it's own url, aka 'premalink', and this updates itself in the index.”

Does this mean the index is wound forward yet the individual comment/date associations remain static?

To add a little more context, if you scroll down a touch at this link you’ll come upon Resistor’s posting of excerpts from the WBM trail, exposing those ‘madeleine’ .jpgs files:

http://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t800p960-ceop-show-maddie-is-missing-on-30th-april-2007

Among other things, it indicates a 30 April first crawl date for the images held under a cryptic sub-head together with a 6 June first crawl for the same pics, but with the sub-head removed.

This suggests to me, as I intimated earlier, that the pictures were moved from somewhere (where they were crawled on the 30th) to somewhere else (where they were crawled on the 6th). The WBM saw (recorded) the pics as different (i.e. not identical) because they were in different locations – any computer would do so. Unlike you or
I it cannot ‘see’ the pictures.

What remains to be explained are those instances that 'Nuala' keeps harping on about, where a 30 April first crawl date appears to be recorded for files listed thus (cf. the Resistor screen grab):

http://www.ceop.gov.uk/blahblahblah/filename_2015 (this is a fictitious location obviously)

and where the final identifier incorporates a date in advance of what appears to be its first crawl.

Is this in any way similar to the situation you describe above? Are we looking at a practice where, for instance, the contents of a folder (which itself can only be crawled for the first time once) are being continually added to and it is NOT AFTER ALL the first crawl date of the additional items that is being shown to us for some reason but the first crawl date of the folder each time?

Thanks and regards

Martin R.

Martin R. said...

@Agnos 08.45

"I have to admit to some sleep deprivation as I type this!"

Me too!

"But I can't see any error in what your article or comments have stated."

Your own arguments are unassailable and your confirmation a personal relief, although it presages a very dark conclusion, and (possibly) a gloomy outcome in the long run. (I have little or no faith in Operation Grange, I'm afraid - but then you know that).

Very best wishes

Martin R.

Martin R. said...

@Whodunnit

It would appear that your earlier comment (00.43) has been abducted!

I know it was there because I read it and have since replied, but the scoundrel has obviously returned to snatch my reply also!

As important as the details are to the discussion I'll not get into a lather over it right now. I'll mail 'H' and ask if our remarks are to be found in the 'Spam' bucket.

Like yourself I really don't want to go establishing accounts right left and centre since I have only ever commented here (and I have it all on to remember what I did yesterday never mind the digital specifics required by a variety of on-line services - I don't do well on over-complication).

Kind regards

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit

The small matter of your disappearing post and my disappearing reply remains as yet unresolved.

Nevertheless, if you have a look at HKP's post of 12.22 (CMOMM, p.35) He might just have 'nailed it'.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

@Agnos/Whodunnit/other species (Thank you 'H' for the category)

Jim Gamble - "if it ever came out that either of the McCanns were involved in this, I will be absolutely shocked."

Curiously 'Resistor' (Madeleine McCann Mystery forum) was looking for this quote a little while ago.

I say 'curiously' because it was she who found it, quoted it and commented upon it earlier. I just happen to have copied her post at the time - it was that sharp.

Anyway, to judge from his own admission, coupled with the direction of inquiries, we might at least be allowed to suppose that Gamble has been 'absolutely shocked'.

Kind regards all (to include those 'other species')

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

And for so long I had imagined Ms Tanner to be the weakest link.

Agnos

Himself said...

A bit late to the machine today kiddywinks, please let me know if anything is missing.

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit

My held over reply to your points of late last night, having been abducted by Blogger earlier, have since been re-instated by the watchful 'H'.

Do please refer if able. It's showing as 08.58 above (which might be a touch out of sync. but that's beside the point.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Martin

Like Himself I'm a bit late to the machine today. frankly I do not quite understand yet what I was looking at when I accessed the index to my blog. I'll have to go back and take more time with it but my intuition is they reflect updates, comments etc. ie 'dynamic' content. Going over to check out the latest from HKP at CMOMM.

Cheers.

whodunnit

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit 17.48

"Going over to check out the latest from HKP at CMOMM."

Where (on CMOMM) you will find an interesting letter from an IT professor in the USA.

Note the underlined passage, which refers to the primacy of a saved page.

In that context, it is worth bearing in mind, I think, that 'McCann.html' was a relatively simple construct, with a banner distinctively different from that of the home page. Significantly it included the words: 'Madeleine McCann', as confirmed within the code.

People can argue as much as they wish concerning the two picture elements involved, but this banner would be the first aspect put in place (the leading position of the relevant section of code confirms). The words are explicit text - they are not 'imported' (as are the image files), but written virtually ab initio.

Hence if, in the opinion of said expert, the dating of basic page coding is the most reliable aspect of the WBM process then the dating of a page shouting Madeleine McCann would should have been accurate.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts @ 18:46---"Hence if, in the opinion of said expert, the dating of basic page coding is the most reliable aspect of the WBM process then the dating of a page shouting Madeleine McCann would should have been accurate."

Indeed. No argument yet offered has convinced me the page didn't exist on April 30th. Each new piece of evidence brings a firmer conviction on that point. I admit a bit of bemusement was caused by the index of my own blog but none of it refers to a blog post that did not exist when the initial capture said that it did.

Cheers
whodunnit

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit 19.40

Its virtually QED in my view (sorry about the typo btw - read would or should but not both eh?)

All best

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

"Virtually QED". That's my view too. If anything, I think we have been a little too hard upon ourselves. Computers do not pluck general states of number out of thin air! There is no command that says "on any given day"; hence, nobody has come even close to establishing this integer, 30042007, to be part of any general class of error. "These things happen" just doesn't cut it I'm afraid!

30042007 is a precise instance of only one class of action: the successful, routine crawl of a file! There is no reason to doubt it. It has met every threshold!

I really am that confident.

I keep saying it, but thank you all!

Agnos

Anonymous said...

@Himself @ 19:54---that was actually Dr. Roberts' quote but naturally I agree with it 100%

@Agnos---Certainly none of their arguments, declarations, straw men, feet stamping will 'cut it'. Not at all. Wondering about the poor rabbits about to be pulled out of black hats..there are always rabbits.

Cheers

whodunnit.

Martin Roberts said...

@Agnos 21.49

Sorry this is late - I got tied up (metaphorically that is).

A major cause of ideological schism in this debate is, I believe, peoples' misunderstanding of what it means to save a 'page'.

The moment the word is mentioned most will instinctively think of a rectangular area occupied by text and pictures, i.e. a page as typically viewed. What is perhaps not properly understood by all is that, as far as the WBM is concerned, a page is no more than a piece of code returned by the crawler in respect of a unique URL it has just encountered.

In all probability said 'page' will be represented by (and henceforward identified with) a surprisingly modest alpha-numeric sequence. Once that is in place then the 'page' can be considered as having been archived on whatever date it is that that specific transaction involving the crawler occurred.

The rest of the details (again nothing but data or pointers to data) are streamed in as the on-line traffic permits. (I know electricity and gas are NOT delivered in this way, but just imagine a row of houses, each subscribing to a different supplier and waiting for THEIR particular units of fuel to appear within the constant stream of randomly distributed clumps sent down the pipe by British Gas, SSE, E.ON, etc.).

Later, when a 'page' is required in respect of a given date, the initiating data FOR THAT DATE are first recovered, followed by all of the other relevant bits and pieces. Should it not be possible to re-construct the original from entirely contemporaneous elements, for whatever reason, the WBM searches back and forth until it finds a suitable replacement, patches it in, and considers it dated as per the page requested.

I wish I'd thought of it earlier, but a perfect descriptive analogy is that of the London Stock Exchange of the early 70s (a decade and more before the advent of desk-top computers). Transactions were a genuine paper chase back then.

A Broker might strike a bargain on behalf of a client, but then have to wait days (sometimes weeks) before sufficient stock transfers were delivered to meet it. However long it took to construct the total number of shares required for re-registration on the client's behalf, the date of the purchase bargain was immutable, and it would be that aspect one would use to locate any discussion of the process, not the intermittent arrival of transfers from elsewhere (unless of course the discussion concerned those transfers explicitly).

Whatever else one might say about the WBM, the dating of its pages (as understood by IT and NOT as seen by the viewer) is, ipso facto, the most robust of its procedures. Where we have a page whose principal compositional element is a banner incorporating simple text (not the convoluted graphical or other contents of some remote file called to cough up its contents) - simple text that would be quickly written, being hard-wired within the source code for the page in question, then we may be confident that those 'early bird' aspects of the complete data set were indeed contemporaneous captures.

And if said banner should read 'Madeleine McCann'?

Well it does. So we have a page ('McCann.html) archived on 30 April 2007 which, when replayed, reads Madeleine McCann, without invoking any futuristic data capture whatsoever - this coupled with a pair of images that were also reportedly archived on that same date, albeit as individual items in their own right.

Can we hope to get any nearer a 'Slam dunk!' than that, I ask?

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

OMG, that's the perfect explanation. Thank you thank you thank you! I hope you don't mind if I copy this to CMOMM?

CHEERS!!

whodunnit

Himself said...

There are times Martin, when you simply astound me.

Anonymous said...

Martin,

BRILLIANT BRILLIANT

I think I shall sleep tonight!

Though not thoroughly conversant with web protocols and everyday tech. I have spent an accumulation of too many years (in my relative youth) trying to debug code (and still playing around today) not to know the apposite questions: Is this an anomaly? What is it's origin? What might be it's class of error?

Then get back to us. More to the point archive.org....get back to us. They will have known at the very first glance! Or at least at the second...when it became all too clear.

Agnos

Anonymous said...

Just to expand a tiny bit further. This is something like the debate I have been turning around, and nearly posted earlier:

....don't show me a declared 'similar' instance which you say is "wrong too", because this integer (30042007) has a unique origin and until that origin is known by you then you are not at liberty to make any general assumptions of class. And certainly not class error or class anomaly. I will never accept this html date to be an instance of a repeatable class ("these things happen") until somebody tells me precisely what has happened.

I allow only ONE exception to the above. I will accept the general class of a successfully dated crawl! Why? Because it is the known operational class of the entire WBM Modus Op.

The question that others should be asking themselves is why do they doubt it?

They doubt it for little more reason than Pat Brown offered (and it genuinely saddens me to say that): it doesn't coalesce with their preferred interpretation.

Another schism I think is between those who are successfully distinguishing between data and interpretation (us I say immodestly!) and those who are not.

Once again,
Agnos

Anonymous said...

And again... sorry....still turning this around and around!
The above does not amount the hoary old God problem: "I say there is a God...now prove me wrong."
Not at all. We are in possession of sourced data, not bland assertion. Now if somebody is prepared to get serious (at archive.org) and can prove us wrong (what class of phenomenon is this, if not the primary date?) then fine. I will remove all my little flags from the board and start again!! But conspicuously nobody has been able/willing to do this. Hence, all along, my not so quiet confidence!

Agnos

HKP said...

I would just like to point out (please bare in mind I'm not a techie) that the Madeleine 01 & 02 jpg's display the exact same capture sequence as the other jpg's in the main index. There are single day captures followed by a range capture. If you then look specifically at their URLs you find a unique identifier which is (s(beokrn453z22tm55hjfuox45)). By looking only at this identifier you get 104 files, all files apart from these 2 are replicated on average 20 times on 30/04/07 (their identifier changes but not the 'page name' I.e. topic related news appears 24 times that day, article 20070509 appears 15 times note it's one of the 'future' ones). The 2 Madeleine pictures appear once only! Having looked at other jpg's and how the capture sequence was the same I came to the conclusion that because of the type of file they were accurately captured on 30/04/07.

HKP said...

Can I just add that on 30/04/07 Madeleine. ceopupload.com was repeated 9 times which falls into line with the above theory (it and others do not have an instance where the unique identifier is the same as the Madeleine jpg's(

David Steel said...

I like to keep an open mind. This case has exposed many abnormalities and IMO anything is possible.

I appreciate the comments within this thread as I'm finding them educational. Steve Marsden came under criticism (which he won't give a f*ck about) but he was correct in bringing this to the fore.

Someone asked if the PJ had been informed about this discrepancy - I did email Operation Grange on June 17th about this, what they will do is anyone's guess.

I found Chris' reply to Lizzy HiDeHo interesting. It was on the lines of 'We have done all we can. If anyone has a problem speak to the police' ... which has me thinking that perhaps an authority has been in touch with WBM? ... Or perhaps I over think!

Anonymous said...

@HKP,

the comment of yours quoted earlier from Martin:

Wholly Irrespective of the dates assigned to those data that may be daisy-chained in this way, we should be measuring (As HKP has recognised) the innermost ring of the tree for evidence of when it was born. If ‘mccann.html’ was not present on 30 April then the WBM could not have seen it.

...and the penny finally dropped for me. The observation remains unscathed I think, in fact corroborated time and again!

Many Thanks
Agnos

Anonymous said...

http://www.legalcheek.com/2015/06/top-barrister-sparks-social-media-row-with-telly-copper-over-janner-trial-of-facts/

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit 01.57

Sorry for the delay but occasionally I have to be elsewhere and this morning was one of those occasions.

I don't mind your cross-posting my comments at all.

However, I detect a reluctance to discuss this issue in terms we can all understand, in favour of pseudo-analyses. When buying a house, does it really matter whether the windows were put in before the roof was topped out or vice versa?

We keep hearing 'Explain this, explain that', in answer to which I should be inclined to reply: If YOU believe XYZ is an 'error', then YOU explain it to me, because my interest is in ABC exclusively - an area btw which cannot be subject to miscalculation.

I would encourage you to read the recent comments of Agnos (if you have not already done so).

Since we are ultimately concerned with the 'competence' of a machine, the operation of which is governed by the constraints of Boolean logic completely and absolutely, these are the parameters we should keep in mind as our baseline, not the deceptive on-screen appearances others are persistently resorting to as 'evidence', when ultimately it is nothing of the kind.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

@Agnos 06.41 et seq.

Your voice is that of an Oxbridge PPE graduate - might you be that or similar?

I can only add that your extension to my observations (as refined as it is penetrating) has spared me from writing the corollary!

I must admit, I owe my LSE insight to that 'letter from America' - and our dog. It took me for a walk in the late evening and allowed me to 'cogitate' without interruption.

Very many thanks for your on-going contribution to this debate. I for one value it considerably.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

@HKP 9.34/10.05

Like yourself I am no techie by current standards. That doesn't mean reasoning is denied either of us!

I have seen your endeavours at the WBM coalface, so to speak, and I am much obliged to you for any procedural confirmation it may yield (I should be P.C. and say 'one way or the other', but given the sign at the far end of the street....).

I notice that someone has seen fit to 'take your name in vain', so as to 'prove' something, but I am at a loss as to what that something is exactly.

'Could haves', implying an erroneous decision or action, can only apply to authors of computer code, not the executive devices, which NEVER mistakenly interpret the rules of logic governing their function

As mentioned to @Whodunnit just a little while ago, it is our man Agnos who holds the reins when it comes to formal interpretation. Read him carefully and understanding beckons.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for that Martin,

I have a very dubious distinction in that regard. I believe I was one of the few people to turn down a place at Cambridge (there must be others)! I was one of those awkward sods who up until the age of 18 had devoured all things mathematics and computers (perhaps too quickly if I'm honest). And with a Cambridge offer....I went instead to Art College! It was only when pursuing a theoretical Masters in that field (years later) that I found myself drawn back to computational theory. I was tackling a dissertation that tried to socially "situate" art in much the same way as people such as Bruno Latour and Isabelle Stengers have done for Technology and Science. It was pretty lightweight to be honest, with all the usual limitations of simply getting to the qualification! But it rekindled the interest for me.

It was only this morning that I could clearly see that your various detractors on the web were completely top-down. They have said nothing that comes close to a refutation. And if reports are true then it seems that WBM would rather people used a police officer as an intermediary for an explanation, rather than just point us to an FAQ!

You have been completely vindicated in pursuing this, irrespective of what DCI Wall fails to do. These screenshots are now public domain. It is another little difficulty for some people to face.

Thanks again, and of course to Himself too. This is the only blog that could host such a discussion.

Agnos

Anonymous said...

Thank you all very much indeed for sharing your investigations and thoughts openly. I've found it all very reassuring on many levels.

whodunit said elsewhere:-
"Oh yeah oops. Clever, and very disingenuous. Not a very high recommendation for your intentions."
Bravo!

All in all this piece of evidence has been very enlightening.

Martin Roberts said...

@Anonymous 17.39

Yes. And the individual she said it of, after conducting a somewhat convoluted 'test' has concluded:

"The capture date for any CEOP archive dated any date never mind 30 April 2007 simply just cannot be relied upon."

Q: How many such 'archives' do we imagine the WBM to have accrued after 20 years? (let's say it's the number 'n').

The probability of this conclusion's being true therefore is 1/n.

(The missing number is actually somewhere in the order of 485 billion!)

I should, on this basis, immediately re-evaluate my chances of jackpot success in the National Lottery (1/14 million (give or take)).

Our analyst has a couple of options open at least:

1. Lessen the odds, by conducting her test as many times as might be necessary to establish, to a minimum acceptable level of statistical significance (p<0.5), that such rogue archives are sufficient in number to support the aforesaid conclusion (Job for life territory)

2. Delete the word CEOP, assume the conclusion applies across the board, and await a writ from archive.org for damage to their reputation!

Happy Days!

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

"Never mind 30 April 2007"
These things will happen. Integers appearing from nowhere 30042007. Ssshhh

QED!

Agnos



Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts

Apparently WBM do not care about their reputation as they will only answer inquirers who do not know the meaning of the words WBM are using to not explain the error. Not only that but via this most helpful Inquirer, we're told that if anyone else wishes to submit further, clarifying questions they should just 'call the police'. Rather cuts that off at the knees, don't you think?

And this most helpful Inquirer is crushed that anyone would 'make' conspiracy theories about her unrecorded, unverified, convivially long on minutes yet regrettably sparse on reportage, telephonic conversation which are now effectively cut off from people who might understand the jargon and to how to conduct and report a credible inquiry.

It's like a detective reporting to the press: 'the suspect isn't guilty of murder because he said the word 'alibi'. I believe him. Now go away.'

Nevertheless, the preponderance of opinion remains steadfast: mccann.html existed on April 30, 2007.

The questions now become 'what does this mean, exactly?' and 'where do we go from here?'

Cheers

whodunnit

Martin Roberts said...

@Agnos/Whodunnit

Whoopsie! I realised while out walking the doggie that I'd committed a typing error.

That wee number (p<0.5) should have been p<0.05 (Being unwittingly kind I was).

Not so much a job for life as one for eternity perhaps. Still there's always plan B I guess.

Hopefully (rubs hands in unmitigated anguish) no one of any consequence will have noticed. Otherwise we'll no doubt hear: 'Roberts has made a mistake, therefore nothing he says can be relied upon - ever!'

Regards both

Martin R.

P.S. Question to Whodunnit: Would you mind terribly confirming your gender. Unthinkingly I have addressed you differently on at least two occasions (I must have been right once at least). I don't mean to be rude, I simply wish not to embarrass either of us in future.

Best wishes

M.R.

Anonymous said...

Haha no problem, I knew you weren't being rude, especially since I haven't exactly been clear about it nor have I bothered to correct the record.

Cheers

Mrs. Whodunnit

HKP said...

@Martin R 14:26
Thank you for your words of support you are quite correct when stating using my (forum name) proved nothing (other than the mindset of the culprit imo)
After sifting through the index then concentrating on the subset data (where Chris Butler says the problem lies) I concluded for myself that mccann.html and madeleine 01 & 02 jpgs stand up to scrutiny and were captured on or before 30/04 (although the jpgs were included in a subset they also stood alone just like mccann. html, the madeleine 01 still puzzles me a bit though) just by looking at the data. Your earlier explanation though is by far the most logical and it's a misunderstanding of how the WBM operates that leads to the constant debate around items which are of little relevance.

Martin Roberts said...

@HKP 21.53

I am perfectly happy to subscribe to your conclusions - most certainly in preference to those of your antagonist, who has established what, exactly? That anyone can create a URL, or (stepping further into the realm of possibility) edit an instance of computer code. No Sh1t Sherlock! I'll be back tomorrow for the next exciting instalment (NOT).

On a more serious note, and despite the predictable 'pooh-poohing', the implications of the consensus view are as disturbing as they are dramatic. There are a lot of people sitting at the table in this game and sooner or late someone will have to say 'Call!'

Thanks again for sharing the fruits of your diligence.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit 21.51

Thank goodness we've got that cleared up. That makes a brace of ladies I'd happily invite to my Christening ('Resistor' being the other).

I must thank them both for their shrewd persistence over this. The older I get the lower is my threshold for putting up with muddled thinking.

In any event Mr Jim Gamble's room for manoeuvre is contracting steadily - on a daily basis almost. But can you really see DCI Nicola or Sir Bernard wheeling him in for questioning? If the McCanns alone were uniquely responsible for this farrago I imagine they'd have been fed to the wolves before now. The involvement of a Govt. agency, if such it be, begs a different set of questions altogether.

However, there is no avoiding the nonchalant ease with which various representatives of officialdom were drafted in to support the McCanns. On which basis, any of us might reasonably expect a publicly funded chauffeur to take us to work!

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Another very general opinion from myself, and I think this is perhaps the reason that I have hung in here for so long now (it appears to be what we are coming to?)

My interest:

We have a cluster of "specialised" (more or less) practitioners squabbling over a contested "truth" that appears to be pulled every which way but Law. Broadly. Pat Brown's blog asserted, without even drawing breath, that the Practitioner's skill of Profiling (an interpretative skill) can claim natural ascendancy over the analysis of a database whose structure must conform to Boolean logic. Set or subset, what class of "error", M'Lud. The blog went further. Not only might the Profiling skill claim this ascendancy, but it might also displace the jury system and claim ascendancy over Judicial Truths, the intricacies of which are perhaps some of the most ancient and culturally embedded of any we might consider. We have a contest of "truths". A Culture War! (Yes, my interest).

Deleuze (not known for his comic turns, but mischievous!): The truth is not relative, but the Relative can be True. (my caps.)

That is to say, truth is relative to the appropriate determining Practice. Simple.

By a gracious turn of synchronicity, even the database's fiercest critic appears to agree that the appropriate Practice to refer our questions to is now one of criminal process. WELL IT ALWAYS WAS.

The question (hypothetical) facing experts in criminal process, certainly not me, is this: is material gained from this digital database admissible in Law. What makes DNA admissible, as opposed to reading somebody's tea leaves?

We are talking about statistical thresholds I think. "Proofs", as such, become moot; until legal process determines it's verdict.

All that it is possible for me to say is that from the perspective of computational logic (as far as I know), everything that Dr Roberts has said should, ordinarily, require archive.org to be asked about there willingness to testify, not over a phone, and not through an FAQ, as to the presumed accuracy of their practice.

With very good reason, we contributors here, and Dr Roberts most especially, can see a presumption of accuracy that is astronomical in proportion! Unimaginable in fact!

Whether people choose to "believe" it or not. Here we are, with a very serious, and a very sad proposition; that should now move move to the appropriate sphere (if it hasn't already, though they sit on their hands).

It 's late again, and I don't know what more to say, this has always been the crux for me.

Agnos

Anonymous said...

I think, dear Agnos, that if there comes a day when this heinous crime is prosecuted, and by a prosecutor who is determined to prove poor Madeleine met her demise [and death is certain according to data obtained by yet more sources whose reliability was beyond reproach until the collided with this case] prior to the raising of the abduction alarm, and that there was a conspiracy to concoct a cover story to conceal the death, and that this conspiracy involved CEOP, WBM can be made to explain this claimed error in excruciating detail.

The disruptors with their walls of stultifying text have been deployed to make sure there is NEVER a groundswell of popular demand for just such a prosecution.
The 'debate' as it happens is a useful tool.

whodunnit

Anonymous said...

Morning whodunnit,
You are absolutely right. In fact you have been right for what seems like an eternity now!

[it] allows one to comfortably assume in the safety of one's own mind that something happened to Madeleine McCann prior to May 3.

"Debate" has served only to hone the accuracy of this assumption. The most refreshing aspect, to me, of this entire thread is that all of us, in one way or another, have notably been debating with ourselves as much as with any other "place". There are numerous comments to the effect of: "if I am right in thinking"...."might it be fair to say"...."would this contradict the thesis". Etc. Nobody has jumped in with 2 feet. Rare occurrence on a McCann thread!

Very best wishes,
Agnos

Anonymous said...

A final word from me, and in support of Mrs whodunnit, HKP, Resistor...

If a person purports to know the class of "error" that has generated the date code in question; and yet that person is unable to assert the extent and duration of said "error" across the WBM structure, then that person does not know the class of "error" at all.

Coding 101.

Agnos

Martin Roberts said...

@HKP 21.53

I noticed v. late last night what appeared to be the fifth column galloping over the hill between one forum and another, desperate to convey a 'proof' that wasn't. It seems others have noticed similar.

I have also seen your latest account of certain archiving 'schedules' for April/May 2007. You deserve every credit for your tenacity sir.

With reference to a very recent observation of PM's, the data you describe are as made available today, 2 July, a week and more now since the anomaly of a 30 April 'capture' of 'McCann.html' was first reported.

I wonder what those same schedules would have looked like if accessed on 1 May 2007 - or 1 May 2015 for that matter?. That's a rhetorical question btw as I don't think we'll ever know the answer. One lives in hope however.

Kind regards

Martin R.

HKP said...

@Martin R 11:08
I downloaded the data on 29/6 realising that it could very well have been 'tampered' with however, if it has they've not made a very good job of it!

Martin Roberts said...

@HKP 11.25

And if those data weren't tampered with then CEOP sure emptied a lot of waste bins during that first week in May.

Such data 'spikes' point to the eventual answer more often than not.

It seems you've 'raised the bar' as far as this issue's concerned. I wonder what the coven will come back with?

Kind regards

Martin R.

Martin

Anonymous said...

Go to BAILLI and search wayback machine - relied on many times

Martin Roberts said...

@Anonymous 13.27

If I were a true Christian I'd say you were a Godsend. I'm not. But you're damn well the nearest terrestrial thing!

Bless you whoever you are!

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

I just had to return for this gem.

Anon @13.27 ....Thank you!

Agnos

Martin Roberts said...

@Agnos 14.49

And there was I on the verge of encouraging you to do so! (Psychic or what? rather more than J. Gamble I'll be bound).

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Martin,
It has been a real pleasure. The pooled resources across this thread have really achieved something.
The detractors will no doubt continue, but I can only repeat myself on that score.

It must be an incredible machine. Court records now appear to confirm this!
(HKP has continued to confirm it too!)

If there is a loose end, then for the moment it sure as hell escapes me!

All the very best,

Agnos


Anonymous said...

@Agnos--"If a person purports to know the class of "error" that has generated the date code in question; and yet that person is unable to assert the extent and duration of said "error" across the WBM structure, then that person does not know the class of "error" at all"

It really is this simple. If you can't explain yourself please stop waving your hands and jumping up and down.

You are absolutely right. In fact you have been right for what seems like an eternity now!

Thank you for your kind words. I've only been studying this case in depth since November [I won't claim I've never commented on it elsewhere because] so if I'm right about any aspect of it it's only because it follows such a depressingly familiar pattern.

Very, very carefully read the wording of the secret indictment of the Ramsey's and see if you can discern what the grand jurors truly believe happened in the murder of poor little JonBenet. As you will see, contrary to the popular spin the Ramsey's WERE NOT indicted for "child abuse leading to death".....[akin to insisting on 'neglect' but not actually copping to it]

Keep in mind the autopsy findings showed both acute and chronic sexual abuse of JonBenet.

Count four of the indictment said the Ramseys "did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenét Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen."

Count seven of the indictment said the Ramseys did "unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

Emphasis mine. Do you see what they were getting at?

In my humble opinion the same exact language could be used in any theoretical indictment of the McCanns.




Anonymous said...

Oops, in case it wasn't clear anon @ 17:20 was me, Mrs. whodunnit.

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit 17.20

Madam, not only are you invited to my Christening but you get the first piece of cake!

Whilst I am aware of the JonBenet Ramsay case (who isn't?) I cannot claim to have studied it; certainly not to the same degree as yourself.

To judge from your shrewd observations here, a particular motive (of the many and several hypothesized over time) might reasonably be moved to the centre of the board.

I think I need not elaborate, except to say that it would indeed explain certain of the unnecessarily salacious remarks made by Kate McCann, in what has been described elsewhere as the 'longest suicide note in history' - a confession and a 'brief to counsel' rolled into one.

Profuse thanks for your participation in this debate which is far from being merely an academic exercise. The importance of the case in question just continues to escalate as time goes by.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Martin
Profuse thanks for your many astute observations across all aspects of this case. Your many and varied reports have given me an education and insight I could not have gotten anywhere else.


Please, just google Nancy Krebs Boulder police testimony.[the transcripts are hosted in a couple of places] There is insight to be gained therein much of which can be applied here, in my opinion.

whodunnit

Anonymous said...

To Martin, Agnos, Whodunnit

I've been following this post and your discussion since it started and would just like to say how fascinated I am with your exchange of information and thoughts and, well, it's a pleasure to be able to read it. Thank you all and to Himself for making it available.

With best wishes
J

Anonymous said...

I wholeheartedly second J.

Thank you all.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, anon 18:18. I've enjoyed the exchanges quite a bit myself.

Dr. Roberts

If you will permit me to elaborate on your remarks: I think I need not elaborate, except to say that it would indeed explain certain of the unnecessarily salacious remarks made by Kate McCann, in what has been described elsewhere as the 'longest suicide note in history' - a confession and a 'brief to counsel' rolled into one

Re: Kate McCann, if you choose to read the testimony of Nancy Krebs, a very strong, very resourceful, very insightful survivor you will find that perhaps KM has yet to reach a certain level of awareness, and perhaps feels justifiably constrained by hard experience to keep it that way. In short, I agree that she often reveals more than she intends to and I for one do not reserve the bulk of my suspicions upon her person as the one/s responsible for the absence of her child.

Anonymous said...

Whodunnit,
Likewise I am relatively green. Nothing like the hard yards of Himself and Martin

BTW: to my knowledge, the source code of WBM operation is not even in the public domain. I'm sure you see the problem.

It's like astrology!

Agnos

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit 18.16

"Please, just google Nancy Krebs Boulder police testimony.[the transcripts are hosted in a couple of places] There is insight to be gained therein much of which can be applied here, in my opinion."

Will do.

BTW I notice your use of a certain past participle which suggests your location as being across the pond from my own.

Fascinating if so, as I have it in mind to re-export this Wayback issue now that I realise (courtesy of another commentator) that a good many contributions to the McCanns' ltd. company will have come from the states.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit/HKP

In light of the earnest on-going debate now regarding split-second timings, it might be apposite to hold onto Whodunnit's point regarding the self-corroborating nature of those previous - future capture dates implanted by the WBM.

If one looks at a the code for another site's very first capture, no specifics are recorded in respect of a previous appearance, which is to be expected, as there won't have been one.

So how can 'McCann.html', when crawled on 13 May, point backwards (30 April) to an event that some (even Chris Butler as I understand it) would argue had yet to happen - on 31 July (or later still if initial speculation is to be taken seriously)? (Don't bother to consider that last observation).

For my part I couldn't really care less what time of day it was on 30 April when CEOP got 'mugged' by the Wayback Machine. In point of fact it wouldn't matter if its clock stopped altogether for four whole days! A 'capture' just the wrong side of 10.00 p.m. on the night of 3 May would be enough to convince me.

Kind regards both

Martin R.

HKP said...

@Martin R
Astute observation as normal for your good self, we have some more of the same timestamp out with ceop as pointed out by Seahorse on the MMM forum

http://web.archive.org/cdx/search/cdx?url=www.codexgeo.co.uk&matchType=prefix&gzip=false&from=20070430&to=20070430

Martin Roberts said...

@HKP 00.16

Do please keep at this.

To expand on my previous comment, it is scarcely possible that a TIMING error can have occurred on 30 April in respect of a crawl that did not take place, or a URL that was not 'captured'. As is the case with the itemisation of previous and future references in respect of first ever captures, the WBM is hardly going to assign a positive value to a null return. Ultimately it is the date that counts.

Never mind the banalities issuing forth elsewhere, if archive.org are in any way convinced their machine got the CAPTURE DATE wrong, then we may be certain it did not do so on 30 April, since it cannot have 'archived' a capture which wasn't.

Instead (and playing devil's advocate), if a later capture event is supposed to have been assigned a retrospective date, then it should be possible for analysts there (not here necessarily) to determine what transpired exactly, and on which of the 240 or so remaining days in the year it happened in this case, be it 31 July, 13 October or whenever.

Besides the claim of false dating, they would also need to explain the necessary re-setting of the backward-looking date held in respect of what should have been a first capture with NO ANTECEDENTS (13 May - unfortunately since relegated to the status of 'runner-up'). Its parameters too would have to be re-set, 13 May having long been 'in the bag' come July, October etc.

Personally I should be surprised if all of this happened, but...

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

HKP said at 1 July 2015 at 21:53 that "madeleine 01 & 02 jpgs stand up to scrutiny and were captured on or before 30/04 (although the jpgs were included in a subset they also stood alone just like mccann. html, the madeleine 01 still puzzles me a bit though) just by looking at the data."

IF the 02.jpg was "captured" on/before 30/4 where was it ? If it was in the 20070430115803 folder, like the 01.jpg was, then surely it would have been displayed in the 30/4 screenshots. Instead what we see, on screen, is 01.jpg and next to it the alt-tag - Does this not suggest the image was NOT captured (or placed in the folder) until after 30/4 and before 13/5 when it is seen on the screengrabs

Can you explain further please, thankyou.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 8.35 - while it would certainly be absolutely astounding if the tennis ball picture of Madeleine was proved to be in existence before Kate says she actually took it, surely it is quite astounding enough that CEOP appear to have had a web page devoted to a child who had no reason to be considered to be in any danger and yet who, just a few days later, disappeared off the face of the earth never to be seen again?

Anonymous said...

Echoing what Martin R has just said, then if at all possible (and within reason!) do keep going HKP. I wish I could help more, but most assuredly I will keep following.

It is of course perfectly legitimate to extrapolate from known operational data (which is precisely what yourself and Martin continue to do). But to attempt to extrapolate from an unknown can only reveal the absurdity of those undertaking it.

Having just noticed, might I also grab this opportunity: if the "J" above is still reading, here a friendly hand in the direction of Portugal!! Portugal? Irrespective, thanks to you.

Agnos

Anonymous said...

BTW, addendum to the above:
It is no longer just years of operational data that asserts our "known", but some legal precedent too.

Oh dear.

Agnos

Martin Roberts said...

@Anonymous 08.35

"IF the 02.jpg was "captured" on/before 30/4 where was it?"

Straight up - I do not know.

I had thought until late last night that looking at the date stamp in relation to the image alone might have told us something, but it does not seem possible now to access that image via its own, heavily nested, URL.

In the light of current notions that a good many items were unexpectedly accorded the same date and time, said specifics may have been uninformative in any event.

"...surely it would have been displayed in the 30/4 screenshots. Instead what we see, on screen, is 01.jpg and next to it the alt-tag - Does this not suggest the image was NOT captured (or placed in the folder) until after 30/4 and before 13/5 when it is seen on the screengrabs"

Concerning the first of these observations, if you track down a certain screen shot (taken by Peter Mac I think) you will notice that, besides the alt-tag, there is an icon indicating a broken connection (which I gather cannot, nor must not, be referred to as a 'link').

Irrespective of how we choose to describe it, its significance is clear - the picture could not be accessed for some unspecified reason, and since several possibilities exist to explain that absence (see the WBM FAQ's) we are really none the wiser. I would add though that someone else (I do not recollect who unfortunately) has commented that after calling up the mischievous page they waited a fair time for said image to load, but it did not.

Turning to the second of your observations here ("Does this not suggest the image was NOT captured (or placed in the folder) until after 30/4 and before 13/5 when it is seen on the screengrabs").

I think not. Sorry to be pedantic, but at best (or worst, depending on your point of view)it can only suggest the image MAY NOT HAVE BEEN captured until after 30 April, since possible alternatives exist in the form of other interruptions to the data flow, as described in the FAQ's above mentioned.

Forgive me if I don't stick my neck out and say it was 'here', 'there', or wherever. Such speculation would be unhelpful and would only open the door to those presumptuous enough to believe that a remark taken out of context is sufficient for them to divine my motives. Would that I had such perspicacity!

Kind regards

Martin R.


Martin Roberts said...

@HKP

About those repetitions...

I am in no position to comment on what it may be possible to accomplish (or is likely to happen) under a given circumstance defined by object-oriented programming, having never done any, but I do know from experience that a computer can become stuck in a 'loop' until the cycle of iteration is interrupted.

Historically such endless repetitions were not computer errors per se but programming errors. The machine would simply have been doing what was asked of it until instructed otherwise, and if the logical 'branch' was not present in the programme it would continue doing it, either until some threshold parameter was met or you switched it off! (Come to think of it, exactly this type of computational behaviour played a significant role in a tragic air crash not too long ago, where a jet literally dropped out of the sky and into the ocean - there were no survivors).

But back to the present.

It just might be worth bearing in mind that what appear on the face of it to be 'errors', i.e. wrongly dated material on a page, repetitive dating of URL's, repetition of a URL etc., these are not errors from the machine's perspective. It cannot make a 'mistake' in merely following its orders to the letter. Of course if the orders are wrong a 'balaclava incident' may well result.

Please keep up your good work. The more facts we have at our disposal the better.

Kind regards

Martin R.

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

@Agnos 15.11

I'll say no more, except just to add my heartfelt thanks for your kind support.

Cheers

Martin R.

(Oh, and Nuala - be a dear and share the above also would you).

Anonymous said...

the 'error' of 30042007 seems to have been 'dealt with' (?)

Respect

Anonymous said...

The 'error' of 30042007 seems to have been 'dealt with' by WBM

Anonymous said...

the sighs of relief from oxbridge can be heard halfway across the world

Martin Roberts said...

@Anonymous 16.08/17/22

Do please elaborate, whoever you are (aingular or plural)

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 08.35

You are cool and deep, man.

Turing, the greatest mind of 20th century, and what have they done to him?

Martin, lead. Love everything you write.

Respect to all of you, people.

The Tao is a silent flower which blooms through the night,
But the night through which it blooms is the flower itself.
No Tao, no flower, no bloomer, no night.
And for this reason, it blooms.

Anonymous said...

@Martin R 16:47

Selecting 30 April 2017 capture at http://web.archive.org/web/20070407060419*/http://www.ceop.gov.uk/
brings up a page (http://web.archive.org/web/20070427113509/http://www.ceop.gov.uk/), dated 27 April 2007, which has no mention of M McCann. It was different, I know, I had screenshots saved.

Also, from the 27 April page you cannot move forward to the next page (14 May), only backward to 7 April. However, you can move back from 14 May to 27 April.

Good wishes

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 15:11

In my previous message at 16:47, the salutation should have been @Anonymous 15:11, not 08.35. Do forgive me, Argos and everyone else.

Peace

Martin R. said...

@Anonymous 17.52

I figured that.

My thanks on Agnos' behalf

Your Peace reciprocated

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Hello all

Great stuff, Agnos.

I wonder what is the exact procedure for finding other sites captured the same exact day and time as CEOP/mccann.html down to the second? Did I miss the explanation? How very, I don't know, convenient?

whodunnit

Martin R. said...

@Anonymous 17.33

How interesting.

I take it you know the WBM people adjusted their 'pointers' in very short order once their attention was drawn to the 'error'.

That might account for your own observations. The thing of it is that you cannot unring a bell.

Archive.org can disconnect/re-connect pages all they like, the 'history' bar still locates the first capture date for any URL they are able to reconstruct, which, as we know, appears as 30 April 2007 for the CEOP pages under discussion - until, that is, archive.org perform their grand re-indexing.

We might find the situation will have changed somewhat by then. Still I imagine there are plenty of holiday snaps in the family album for us all to look back on.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

@Martin R 18:23

Thanks, Martin, you think straight and have a way with words. I guess you are not a doctor of medicine.

Good wishes to you and everyone who wishes you well.

No open or implied disrespect to doctors of medicine is intended.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts

Good thing I decided to make sure I hadn't missed anything--I had!

BTW I notice your use of a certain past participle which suggests your location as being across the pond from my own.

Fascinating if so, as I have it in mind to re-export this Wayback issue now that I realise (courtesy of another commentator) that a good many contributions to the McCanns' ltd. company will have come from the states.

Kind regards

Martin R.
2 July 2015 at 19:50


I am indeed across the pond from you. [btw, in respect to this case, just what is 'THE Pond'?] How can I help you?

Martin Roberts said...

@Anonymous 19.15

"Good thing I decided to make sure I hadn't missed anything--I had!"

Ditto the above. Except I didn't.

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Makes you wonder who the users and used really are?

Martin Roberts said...

@Anonymous 20.34

Ain't that the truth!

M.R.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts

Seems I'm missing stuff all over the place. Multi-tasking isn't really my strong suit. Anon @ 19:15 is me, whodunnit. I'm sorry if I caused confusion by neglecting to sign off as I usually do.

But to reiterate, I am in the US and will help if I can.

Cheers
whodunnit

Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts

I am honestly confused. It seems I have offended you in some way or triggered your suspicions. Whatever it was and however I did that I am truly regretful. If you would explain what has happened, as specifically or as generally as you wish, hopefully I can set it straight.

Cheers
whodunnit

Anonymous said...

@Martin R 18:23

Agnos’ last message prompted me to post initially. I have re-read the message to let it soak in, I have of course read all his posts on this thread. He is a superior writer.

However, I have a problem with the sentence in his last message “They are so far from the code and so far from true understanding that it is postively unethical (professionally).” Are you in a position to elucidate what the “it” which “is postively unethical (professionally)” is?

Martin Roberts said...

@Anonymous/whodunnit

As the saying goes: "You never get a second chance to make a first impression"

I was merely intrigued by the co-incidence of your location and my intention.

Thank you for your offer of help but the internet has simplified the problems of communication appreciably and I think I can manage.

Good on you for posting those screen-shots on CMOMM as you did earlier. It seems now as though the thugs have arrived on the scene.

All best

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit 20.58

Water under the bridge my dear Mrs W! (living in a fast-moving technological world such as we do.

There was no offence taken I assure you. Perhaps I'm simply turning into an older version of Mel Gibson's cab driver character.

Just keep on truckin' in your usual way. Everything's fine. I thank you sincerely for pursuing the WBM issue as you have (Did you ever establish quite how that second 11.58.03 URL was turned up btw?).

I genuinely do not require help for what I might have in mind to do next. I don't think I asked for it, did I? Not explicitly at any rate.
I just happened to notice your one verbal foible and thought, 'now there's a coincidence!'. (One coincidence, two coincidences...oh never mind. You know where that'll take us).

Thanks also for interceding on my behalf elsewhere. When people resort to personal attacks you know there's not much else they can call upon.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Dearest Dr. Roberts

Water under the bridge my dear Mrs W! (living in a fast-moving technological world such as we do.

There was no offence taken I assure you. Perhaps I'm simply turning into an older version of Mel Gibson's cab driver character.


You have no idea how many times I've turned into that same character so I could hardly hold your temporary lapse against you, could I?

I don't think you specifically asked for my help I merely thought I detected a possibility in your tone. In any case, on point pieces of evidence seem to pass by quickly in our technological world, where the shills STILL have hold of the loudest bully-horns.

No, I haven't yet worked out how that down to the second url turned up. What are the chances? I'm no statistician, to say the least, but WBM must crawl millions of pages per day; at least a few of those must be crawled at the same time via multiple 'spiders', but what are the chances of finding the matching time-stamped pages without a knowable mechanism? [that is, besides one that is internally accessible via company programmers?]

cheers
whodunnit

Martin Roberts said...

@Anonymous 21.12

"I have a problem with the sentence in his last message “They are so far from the code and so far from true understanding that it is positively unethical (professionally).” Are you in a position to elucidate what the “it” which “is positively unethical (professionally)” is?"

I'll take a run at it and hope Agnos doesn't come screaming down the wire at me if I'm wrong.

I believe he is suggesting that to comment in any meaningful way on the rather complex issue at hand demands a genuine appreciation of either the 'nuts and bolts' instruction set sustaining the WBM in its operation and/or a very good 'feel' for its logic, not in a glib sense, but in terms of its functionality and how that might be accomplished through programming. Anyone claiming to speak with the voice of a professional should have both, like a pianist who can play Chopin AND scales.

Although not personally acquainted with the current 'mysteries' of HTML development (JavaScript and the like), I was first obliged to come to terms with computing at a time when they were the electronic equivalent of a James Watt beam engine, rattling away inside a dedicated room (as opposed to purring on a desk-top). Nevertheless the principles by which they are governed have not have changed - they have merely evolved.

I hope that comes close to an explanation. Otherwise hang tight until Agnos comes back (although I fear you may have to wait for rather a long time).

Kind regards

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit 21.53

"No, I haven't yet worked out how that down to the second url turned up. What are the chances? I'm no statistician, to say the least, but WBM must crawl millions of pages per day; at least a few of those must be crawled at the same time via multiple 'spiders', but what are the chances of finding the matching time-stamped pages without a knowable mechanism? [that is, besides one that is internally accessible via company programmers?]"

Wasn't the 'discovery' courtesy of Rustyjames, or Seahorse perhaps on MMM? I need to go back to that topic myself. In any event 2/485 billion scarcely makes for an argument. In fact it doesn't. At all.

I would even speculate that data-transfer rate might contribute to such a phenomenon, but speculation is all it is, nothing more.

As to the 'what are the chances' part of your observation - indeed.

For those in the know, I bet it wouldn't be that hard a task to configure a tailored search of the archive - the facility is continually inviting just such a process after all, and with the full results delivered in seconds (that's what I call data transfer).

Since our doubts are wholly justifiable, the only way this issue can truly be put to bed is by archive.org coming clean - publicly. There is of course a list of reasons why they would probably rather not do so and, as Machiavellian as it may appear to suggest it, the list could well have grown since the question was first put to them.

We are still here though.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

I'm the anon from the first post.

I sense a strong change of aroma in the air around these discussions and even personality changes.

Bring in the dogs...

A.

Martin Roberts said...

@Anonymous 22.22

Nah! They're totally unreliable.

Here's Johnny......

M.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts @ 22:19

Since our doubts are wholly justifiable, the only way this issue can truly be put to bed is by archive.org coming clean - publicly. There is of course a list of reasons why they would probably rather not do so and, as Machiavellian as it may appear to suggest it, the list could well have grown since the question was first put to them

Simply no way around it, they must comment publicly to put this issue to rest and NOT through a non-note taking intermediary. But again you are correct about the list of reasons why they won't do it. There is simply no profit in it for them. Unless there is a court case of some sort wherein this evidence is the lynchpin I'm afraid it will remain the realm of speculation--at least insofar as 'neutral' observers are concerned. Myself, I am quite satisfied that mccann.html existed and was crawled on April 30, 2007 via a link provided by the CEOP homepage, no doubt said link thereafter hastily withdrawn until the proper time.

Cheers
whodunnit

Martin Roberts said...

@Whodunnit 22.44

Hence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuMtZstnoT8

Invert the preposition and omit archive.org from the guest list I say. And if things don't take a sensible turn before very long that is exactly what I propose to do.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Doh!
The code, however complex, is the thing to be moved through on ALL occasions. If it contains an error then it will either be evident on every occasion (worst case scenario), or only on those occasions when a particular subroutine/function is called.
IF it IS asserted that an error has happened only once, and that it CAN happen only once then the problem is not with the code. The error must lie within the one unique instance that enters into this digital fray: the html. (Or an act of God!)
But it is the simplest and most innocuous html we could imagine.

Your concluding para QED
:-)

Martin Roberts said...

@Anonymous 13.01

Simples! (when put like that).

Since, as I understand, a SECOND example has been unearthed (within a different directory path entirely - don't ask me how) of multiple archivals to the very second, then all the WBM engineers would need to do is look for the common ground between these unrelated accounts and zero in on the cause (which might well turn out not to have been an 'error' as such after all). A day's work maybe?

Concluding paragraph - no doubt. There's many a scientist who would give their eye-teeth for such a 'cut and dried' test, there being no middle ground!

Interesting too that archive.org reported back later to the effect that they were reaching a negotiated settlement with CEOP (described as 'them') over the 'timing' issue. Rather like a garage saying 'X' is wrong with your car but they'd happily attend to 'Y' if you'd rather.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

I think I reach the same conclusion as yourself.

Anonymous said...

@ Dr Roberts, 22.19

There is no mystery in how I found the same time stamp.

I just googled "20070430115803" and this link came up on page 2:

http://archive.is/www.codexgeo.co.uk

I then looked into it a bit further and saw that wayback had 16033 captures from the codexgeo domain taken on 30th of April 2007 at 11:58:03.

http://web.archive.org/cdx/search/cdx?url=www.codexgeo.co.uk&matchType=prefix&gzip=false&from=20070430&to=20070430

None of this makes sense to me and I am hoping that Wayback will throw light on the issue as much as you do.

Seahorse

Anonymous said...

Himself,
I don't know whether it is possible, but if so would you be kind enough to delete my above diatribe of yesterday at 15.11.

Two instances was my only requirement. I still know the odds, across 8 years. Shall we politely say that Chris Butler was precipitate in his diagnosis, and that the ensuing "negotiations" must have been a surreal affair, given that the "issue", it transpires, was not the issue at all. It appears that I was precipitate in my judgement.

I know precisely where my flags are placed, but shall keep them private henceforth.

Seahorse, I don't believe that light will ever be shed upon this. Ever. It was a "glitch" after all. A glitch in time, so to speak.

To Martin especially: By no means is this a loss of confidence in ANYHTING that you have asserted about this case, or that you might yet pursue. I am sure you know that. It has been a rare pleasure. I sincerely wish that we could have met across a happier subject.

Warm regards to EVERYBODY whose intention it is to see justice for Madeleine. Everybody.

Agnos

Martin Roberts said...

@Seahorse 14.18

"There is no mystery in how I found the same time stamp."

Not to you perhaps, but with so much being said by so many over the past week or so I was fast losing track of the direction the different enquiries were taking (I did at least recollect your involvement in this one!).

Thank you for spelling it out.

A clue to the answer ought to reside within some aspect of Wayback's treatment of these two apparently different domains that was common to both. (Was it pure chance that they sneezed at the same time or was it because they were in the same room?)

You say you 'looked into it' in order to distil this second instance (which elevates the number of recognised examples now to 2/485 billion and counting). Have you any grounds for suspecting there may be more, or has Google led you to the only other 'error' of this precise nature in existence do you think?

I hope you don't consider that a loaded question - it isn't intended as such I assure you.

Thanks again for your exploratory diligence. If only archive.org were as forthcoming we could all (me at least) get a good night's sleep (or perhaps not).

Kind regards

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

@Agnos 15.03

I am suddenly reminded of TV chefs Fanny and Johnny Craddock (yes, I'm that old) and - "Here's one I made earlier."

Or the Donald Pleasance character in the Great Escape, as he strides toward a pin he had earlier placed on the floor, in order to demonstrate he was not blind after all.

It's been a pleasure Agnos, come what may.

My very best wishes to you

Martin R.

Himself said...

Update: Comments now closed on this post. Please continue with your contributions at: http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2015/07/monday-monday-bumped.html