Google timestamp of Blog Article on Wife/Accomplice of Suspected Las Vegas Mass Shooter timed 8 hours ago (about 4 hours before shooting)
70 2017-10-02 by PhraseLockedLoop
According to the MSNBC Youtube Live news broadcast, the Las Vegas Mass shooting in Las Vegas started around 10:04 pm PST Oct.1 (Vegas' timezone is PST). Around 2 AM Oct.2 PST I googled the name 'marilou danley' and here's the result:https://imgur.com/a/2GCp8. If the shooting happened only 4 to 5 hours ago, how did this article detailing her alleged involvement get a time stamp of 8 hours ago? A screwup on Google's time stamping algorithm, or something more sinister? Also that whole blog site seems shady af.
33 comments
1 BoaGirl 2017-10-02
There's another one from cbs news posted 8 hours ago
1 rookie1212 2017-10-02
It all depends on where the name "Marilou Danley" comes from, for all you know she could be the housecleaner at the room the shooter stayed at and they're seeking her to find information, or something.
1 II---II_II---II 2017-10-02
Does that make a difference to it being posted 8 hours ago?
1 rookie1212 2017-10-02
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to disparage, that part is definitely fishy. There was also reports of a woman warning people before the event.
1 II---II_II---II 2017-10-02
Yea mate. All good. I just think 'probably' might be a bit of a stretch. Im sure itll all shake out in a few days. Lets face it, they always do. Peace.
1 SLowfalls 2017-10-02
Some posts retain the initial time stamp when posts are updated with new information.
1 II---II_II---II 2017-10-02
So what post was made about the event would have been made 8 hours prior though?
1 Cho-Dai 2017-10-02
Yeah someone closer to the source on the ground could have heard that she was being sought by police at an earlier time than others. From what I have pieced together she is a roommate or girlfriend or associate of the shooter. Also a hysterical woman apparently tried to warn the crowd 45 minutes before it happened so maybe that was her. Maybe she tried to tip off the police earlier and that is why they were seeking her before it happened.
1 LuxuryHorse 2017-10-02
lol
1 explodingliver 2017-10-02
Yeah I saw that Tagalog Lang blog site too earlier when I searched the name. My guess is that gooey definitely messed up on the time of when that post was put up... What's really weird is why the hell would a random blog website about Tagalog would even make a post about the POI in the first place???
1 MetalManiac619 2017-10-02
https://i.imgur.com/kVI5Lhk.png
And this article is timestamped at June 21, 2016. WOW, they planned it so far in advance.
1 PhraseLockedLoop 2017-10-02
What the actual fuck? Man that is interesting. We may be on to something. Maybe you can take a look at the HTML source of the article that the google result links to and grab some origin or publishing timestamps. You can try view source and then ctrl-F for 'time' or anything similar.
1 PhraseLockedLoop 2017-10-02
I took a look at that article you linked and found this in the HTML source: '<div class="article__timestamp"> Monday, 02-Oct-17 06:50:01 PDT </div>'
This is fuckin weird. 06:50:01 PDT assuming 24 hour time would be about 4 hours from now (2:50 AM PST, as PDT and PST time are the same). If it were 6:50 PM it would be even more ahead of time.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-10-02
Many CMS's like WordPress will ping Google to let them know there is new content. I have seen them crawl it within minutes of publishing and in results within an hour or two. Google is much faster these days than even 3 or 4 years ago.
I am not sure about the timestamp thing. One would assume that it would be spot on exactly when it crawled the page. But whenever something happens like cough Sandy Hook cough and the timestamps show foreknowledge some "engineer" posts some vague explanation. It is even more interesting when google and bing show the same timestamp as preplanned.
1 dudeiskate 2017-10-02
They're trying to divert our attention, the sneaky bastards. Keep your heads up
1 Beelzebubbin 2017-10-02
Are we sure the time stamp doesn't reflect on your location?
1 PhraseLockedLoop 2017-10-02
I have no idea really, google probably collects a lot of additional data from the webpage itself when it indexes it, but since I don't work at google I can't speculate on exactly what they collect and how exactly they process their data. That being said, I don't believe the 'google timestamp conspiracy' has been fully debunked. There's been occurrences of this 'early timestamp' phenomenon in numerous mass shooting/false flag events in the past, such as with Sandy Hook and Orlando.
1 X1Cygnus 2017-10-02
JFC... Every fucking time. Google time stamps are an estimate and don't mean shit! I'm pasting this from the last time, so change the information to fit this current tragedy:
SMH... This comes up every time. Every event. Two minutes of research is all it takes. I can't believe this nonsense is getting upvoted again.
That little "2 days ago" on your google searches is NOT accurate. It's an estimate based on the last time the site was crawled compared to the current changes. The webpage in question - http://www.odmp.org/officer/23260-deputy-sheriff-william-durr - was posted TODAY.
"Estimated Creation Date": "2017-05-28T18:35:53"
This is only an ESTIMATE as there is no standard of logging the exact publishing dates of individual pages under a domain.
Old Dominion University hosts http://carbondate.cs.odu.edu/ to determine more closely when a page may have been published.
Complete results: { "self": "http://carbondate.cs.odu.edu/cd?url=http://www.odmp.org/officer/23260-deputy-sheriff-william-durr", "URI": "http://www.odmp.org/officer/23260-deputy-sheriff-william-durr", "Estimated Creation Date": "2017-05-28T18:35:53", "Archives": "", "Bing.com": "", "Last Modified": "", "Twitter.com": "2017-05-28T20:17:00", "Google.com": "", "Backlinks": "", "Bitly.com": "2017-05-28T18:35:53", "Pubdate tag": "" }
1 VVAR_Aarius 2017-10-02
Can someone verify this?
1 X1Cygnus 2017-10-02
YOU could go to the website, plug in the proper information and verify it yourself: http://carbondate.cs.odu.edu/
This is the Department of Computer Science at Old Dominion University. It's not some joke. Website publishing dates are not cateloged. Even this system is still only an estimate, but it's closer than Google.
The ODU website states that this computation is very resource intensive, hence why Google doesn't do it for the millions of websites its crawler cateloges each day.
1 SixVISix 2017-10-02
Calm down.
1 King_jutt 2017-10-02
Where'd all your karma come from? You have two posts and 4 comments?
1 TheWiredWorld 2017-10-02
I would also like to know
1 Carl_Moore 2017-10-02
you can delete stuff and the karma doesn't go away
1 King_jutt 2017-10-02
Thank you for the reply. Its odd they would delete their posts that have the karma yet keep the two that didn't gain traction and posted almost a year ago.
1 chefwithpants 2017-10-02
Unless it was gone wild type post, which is what I do. Or mods removed it. Jesus...
1 PhraseLockedLoop 2017-10-02
Nonsense? Can you offer an exact reason for the discrepancy other than 'estimated time'? I do a little software engineering on the side of things and tend to scrutinize little details like timestamps of articles. It seems that instead of addressing the links myself and u/MetalManiac619 posted directly (where exactly did we post a link to http://www.odmp.org/officer/23260-deputy-sheriff-william-durr ?), you instead vaguely generalize the whole issue without offering a specific reason other than 'google timestamps are estimates', and divert attention to another article we did not post. That little 'carbon date' python script you linked estimates the creation date based on 'making requests to the different modules (Archives, backlinks, etc.), in a concurrent manner through threading', in addition to grabbing timestamping in the HTML source of the page. So in other words, we're just relying on other quoted timestamps which does not get to the crux of the issue: why is there a timestamp discrepancy in the google reported timestamp for the two links myself and u/MetalManiac619 posted?
1 PhraseLockedLoop 2017-10-02
Come at me shills. I like to be entertained every once in a while.
1 BlueOak777 2017-10-02
Website owners can backdate posts. Google reads this meta data and displays it. Being the first to break a story is really big (traffic, links, $$$), so shady site owners will backdate a breaking story by a few hours to get dibs.
1 BigAlBerry 2017-10-02
And pay attention to all the comments that agree with each other, with no substance to them, or real explanation as to why they think that.
People truly looking for information aren't close minded and generally open to new evidence. Not running around making claims that have no evidence, and deadset their claim is right.
Someone who is coming here to push PLAUSIBLE theories with no or shady evidence is definitely pushing a agenda
1 sinedup4thiscomment 2017-10-02
If this was capped of some major media outlet I'd be more inclined to believe it wasn't just a technical glitch or error. How the hell did this random Philipino blog get access to clandestine information? That's something you'd expect CNN, BBC, or Fox News to have access to, not tagalog.
1 PhraseLockedLoop 2017-10-02
"Tagalog (/təˈɡɑːlɒɡ/;[6] Tagalog pronunciation: [tɐˈɡaːloɡ]) is an Austronesian language spoken as a first language by a quarter of the population of the Philippines and as a second language by the majority. Its standardized form, officially named Filipino, is the national language of the Philippines, and is one of two official languages along with English."
Concerning the blog article and blog website itself, it sets off my shady website alarm. I don't know how they managed to access Marilou Lou's information, or why they would even bother to post an article concerning her (was she well known in the Fillipino community, or something else?). As well, certain Fillipino websites are notorious for being fronts for scams and more sinister stuff such as human trafficking and sex tourism.