[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by ynguldyn

This is a valid argument. If you saw my original posts, I only dumped data and didn't try to make any claims, since I had the same concerns.

But here's some evidence that may add some confidence.

Thanks for taking the time to dig this up and post it. Very cool.

Now, the next step would be to prove that this information appeared in that database back in 2005 and 2007 exactly as you've shown here. In other words, how do we know the data was not fudged when originally entered and then changed later on to reflect reality?

I'm working on it.

Great. I will be very curious to hear what you manage to find.

Putting aside my hesitation for a moment, I have to wonder why this resource has not been exploited for these purposes (obtaining "leaked" info) in the past. Or maybe it had been, but I just didn't know about it. I've never seen reference to it until this past week. Has this data only recently been available publicly?