Navy Yard Shooting Reported almost 9 hours BEFORE the Event?

reply to post by xuenchen


Every story on the Daily Courier website is way off in terms of timestamps.

The newest story as I write this is about a n assassination in Afghanistan - the timestamp is 15:13 September 17th (presumably PDT) - current time in PDT is about 12:41am September 18th, so the story was apparently posted about 8 and a half hours ago, but it certainly wasn't visible on the site 8 hours ago.

That same story has been on other websites for about an hour...

I find that fact that the url on the abcnews report is wrong as more strange. How'd that happen?

reply to post by cartenz


Here's a quote from Google for the cached page you linked:

This is Google's cache of www.kelownadailycourier.ca... It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 16 Sep 2013 23:42:52 GMT.

What time would that be in Washington?
If I'm not mistaken it would be, 16 September 2013, 19:40:00

But how long does it take Google to cache a page? (from what I've _briefly_ read, it's anywhere from 15mins to weeks )

I think we'd have to track the websites in question on a daily basis to confirm whether their time-stamps often have issues or not. A lot of work, seeing as you'd have to be hands-on with a lot of the reports.

I dunno.. but I don't see how they would bugger up this much, if they're _really_ pre-planning these events. I just don't see it as possible. You'd have to be Doctor Manhattan

Jimjolnir
I find that fact that the url on the abcnews report is wrong as more strange. How'd that happen?

It means nothing - the text in the link is unimportant, it really just looks at the article ID at the end...

Here's proof:
abcnews.go.com...

reply to post by cartenz

 

Here's a quote from Google for the cached page you linked:

This is Google's cache of www.kelownadailycourier.ca... It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 16 Sep 2013 23:42:52 GMT.

What time would that be in Washington?
If I'm not mistaken it would be, 16 September 2013, 19:40:00

But how long does it take Google to cache a page? (from what I've _briefly_ read, it's anywhere from 15mins to weeks

)

It depends on the website and how it's configured. A site with a working sitemap for the Google bot and on that updates it's content regularly will probably be visited for caching fairly frequently (a few times a day if there's new content).

I think we'd have to track the websites in question on a daily basis to confirm whether their time-stamps often have issues or not. A lot of work, seeing as you'd have to be hands-on with a lot of the reports.

You don't need to track it - you can just visit the site and see. All their wire stories (basically everything in the National and World news sections) are way earlier than they could be.

There's a story about a court case that was apparently published before court even opened for the day.

I dunno.. but I don't see how they would bugger up this much, if they're _really_ pre-planning these events. I just don't see it as possible. You'd have to be Doctor Manhattan

TBH, that's what always gets me about these situations. People simultaneously believe that some secretive organisation is planning the significant events without being discovered and covering them all up, but that they'd be sending out press releases ahead of time?

Even if you believe the media (the world's media in this case, not just the USA) is involved, it makes no sense - sending that sort of information out ahead of time would expose the plan to thousands of people... Any of whom could decide at any moment that they didn't want to be involved anymore and spill the beans all over the web.

reply to post by ThinkMoreBetterer


Well, that 1st link settles it. The web site's time stamp is screwed up. The footage of the event sure as hell didn't happen before the event happened. No one's that good, not even TPTB. Good catch. I'm much more convinced that most people suck at the small technical aspects of their jobs (like screwing up the date stamp at the top of the article) than that there's a shadowy international cabal that could've manufactured that very detailed and specific footage many hours before the actual event took place.

Jimjolnir
I find that fact that the url on the abcnews report is wrong as more strange. How'd that happen?

I can explain that but it would just show how bad I am at my job. It happens. Google "friendly URl's rename"...

Here's a quote from Google for the cached page you linked:

This is Google's cache of www.kelownadailycourier.ca... It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 16 Sep 2013 23:42:52 GMT.

What time would that be in Washington?
If I'm not mistaken it would be, 16 September 2013, 19:40:00

But how long does it take Google to cache a page? (from what I've _briefly_ read, it's anywhere from 15mins to weeks

)

Thats when they last cached the page, not when ther first crawled the page. The page was first crawled by Google on the 15th

I think we'd have to track the websites in question on a daily basis to confirm whether their time-stamps often have issues or not. A lot of work, seeing as you'd have to be hands-on with a lot of the reports.

Or find someone who has the RSS of the site in their reader to confirm it... lol

I dunno.. but I don't see how they would bugger up this much, if they're _really_ pre-planning these events. I just don't see it as possible. You'd have to be Doctor Manhattan

What dont you see? the page existed on the 15th, thats the point of the thread...

EDIT: I could find no RSS link just clicking thru the site... does anyone else think it strange that a newspaper wouldt have an RSS link or page of links... without atleast having a JSON or atom alternative.

I'm calling shenanigans unless the ghost of Aaron Shwartz himself tweets me the RSS URI proving otherwise.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Right. So "they" were smart enough to pull this off but then they were so stupid that "they" reported it early. Riiiiight.... --rolls eyes--

jaffo
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Right. So "they" were smart enough to pull this off but then they were so stupid that "they" reported it early. Riiiiight.... --rolls eyes--

Obviously there is some sort of implications you're drawing from this discourse that have not been covered. I can not speak for everyone else, but it is my opinion that nobody here thinks the persons responsible for the shooting ("they") are in any way connected to the publisher at the Courier ("they")...

Someone mentioned earlier that they could find no other info on the Associated Press author LOLITA C. BALDOR... Ok, if this were a conspiracy website I would find the following interesting:

The name personifies a propaganda tool for tightening federal control of communication
between American citizens and the articles are churned out by NWO hacks.

...

The article is an appeal for support of American citizens to authorize a deal between
government and business to link computers. Very bad idea, unless you are a NWO
globalist. They think it's a good idea to seize control of communication so they can
control the message and the masses.

Source

That was posted in 2011... So far the earliest reference to here was circa 2005. I'm not certain thats true tho, its just worth bringing here I think...

I notice they have changed the site timestamp now, why would they do that do you think?

TaureDawn
ABC just changed the date but the same URL!
I have the photos captured

abcnews.go.com...

so what does everyone have to say now?

one of the dead victims Kathy gaarde.


www.nbcwashington.com...


why does it say here that she is 62 years old


but this one,

www.wjla.com...


says she is 63?


was it her birthday?

www.wusa9.com...


why are all of the people either from Maryland, Virginia, and only one from Washington DC?


All middle to old age as well. don't comment on the age thing people. lets be serious

reply to post by einstein121


To me its more of what those articles have in common that is more curious. But hey I know nothing about media law and ethics; Otherwise I would't get sued so much?. Bad journalism has become pandemic in the English speaking world.

Weazol words: Pejorative language to convey emotion rather than the the clear presentation of facts. Show them a puppy and they wont notice you shooting their best friend in the face. Com' on Mr Eienstine you can do better than that, the second article made little mention of the shooting at all

Really what does the difference in age have to do with it? the age is entered in manually, a digital timestamp is automated...

people from the future are coming back to let us know whats going to happen, but we never listen....

If you use the Wayback machine on ABC's website, the latest headlines at the side don't mention it.

I could be misunderstanding what this thread's about, or maybe I'm just doing it wrong, but as far as I can see, this is another case of ATS wanting every event to be a conspiracy.

cartenz
I notice they have changed the site timestamp now, why would they do that do you think?

Because the timestamp was wrong. If you make an error, you don't leave it there thinking "IF I CHANGE IT I'LL BE SUSPICIOUS!". You just fix the error...

AKindChap
I could be misunderstanding what this thread's about, or maybe I'm just doing it wrong, but as far as I can see, this is another case of ATS wanting every event to be a conspiracy.

Personally, I'd be very happy if there was never a reason to suspect a conspiracy, but unfortunately, with the way things are handled by those that run this nation, that will never be possible.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos


The timedate stamp says it was printed late that night AFTER it all went down in a timezone 3 hours away.

1104light
reply to post by ProfessorChaos

 

The timedate stamp says it was printed late that night AFTER it all went down in a timezone 3 hours away.

You obviously didn't see the link before they changed it. The original timestamp was for 11:31 pm Sunday the 15th.

ProfessorChaos

1104light
reply to post by ProfessorChaos

 

The timedate stamp says it was printed late that night AFTER it all went down in a timezone 3 hours away.

You obviously didn't see the link before they changed it. The original timestamp was for 11:31 pm Sunday the 15th.

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!!!!!!!!!! And timedate stamps are never wrong so this must mean something really special. Ok, go on.

reply to post by AKindChap


Its not on wayback because wayback is an archive--its not Google's cache. NO ARCHIVE is not NO FOLLOW, that is what search bots understand. Wayback did not pick the page up by the time this thread had started, its archive would not be any accurate reflection of how the story first appeared on the web on the 15th.

cartenz
reply to post by AKindChap

 

Its not on wayback because wayback is an archive--its not Google's cache. NO ARCHIVE is not NO FOLLOW, that is what search bots understand. Wayback did not pick the page up by the time this thread had started, its archive would not be any accurate reflection of how the story first appeared on the web on the 15th.

Huh? The Wayback machine shows how the page would have looked on the day that you selected?..