A number of posts below, (titled "How did Koskinen hear about the Navy Document? I told him,") one of the long-time participants on this board claims that he stumbled across the infamous Navy report and emailed Koskinen about its existence. The next day it was gone.

The URL of this Excel spreadsheet was:

http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/utilinfo/Master-util-7_1.xls

So, the question now is, does anyone here know how to use one of those mega-data base systems (Alexis? Googol? ??) to determine whether this file really was on the Web as of, say, August 1st?

Inquiring minds want to know?

(P.S. I've met Lewis. He's a good man. Definitely not a Koskinen boot-licker, as some are now charging.)

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), August 21, 1999

Answers

The old document is done, but has been replaced by a newer version. Go to http:/ /www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/utilinfo/MatrixHeader.html for an overview page. Quoting below:

Master Utilities Y2K Preparedness Status Spreadsheet

Below is a link to our master utilities Y2K preparedness status spreadsheet. We need to emphasize up front that it is a work in progress document and is not yet complete nor should it be supposed by any reader to be complete & final. It represents our opinion of utility provider preparedness, as it affects Naval Installations only. The data does not necessarily correlate with a utility providers ability to service the general public or other customers, just their level of preparedness & property vulnerability as it affects Naval infrastructure. Though based on detailed reviews (where the utility company was amenable & available) by the Navys utility experts using the same audit questions in every case worldwide for consistency, it is nevertheless quite subjective & unavoidably so. It does not represent the Navys official position. In almost all cases, a risk factor of "1" or especially "2" (occurrence of failure improbable and occurrence of failure probable, respectively) means we reviewed the utility companys preparedness efforts and though they look pretty good, there are a few loose ends (normally remediation, testing, and contingency planning) that the company needs to finish. We will be following up in these instances at a later date to re-examine the particular utility companys preparedness.

A risk factor of "3" or "u" (unknown) normally means we have not yet received an answer from the utility company in question or they have not yet agreed to meet or talk with us. Accordingly, we are assuming the worst casebut only for purposes of a Naval Installation preparing its contingency plans, nothing else.

In some instances, we have affirmations (letter, website statement) from the utility company that they will be compliant or are working hard to achieve compliance. In those cases where we have something tangible from the company, we have made an entry in Column C. In other cases, even though we met with the utility company and may have received oral assurances of compliancy, we still have nothing in writing and consequentially there is no entry in this column.

We feel the utilities servicing Naval Installations in the continental United States particularly, as well as utilities servicing Naval Installations outside of the continental United States, are looking very good in their Y2K preparedness, and we do not expect consequential Y2K failures of facilities devices & infrastructure owned by these utility companies.

-- You Know.... (notme@nothere.com), August 21, 1999.

Also check out the next level up, http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/

Looks like there might be some interesting stuff.

-- You Know.... (notme@nothere.com), August 21, 1999.

YouKnow,

Rick was asking not for a verbatim repost of existing info, but rather if anyone could confirm that there was indeed a previously posted page. As I understand it, there are sophisticated mechanisms for determining the existance/non-existence of no-longer existing pages (whew!). To make this analysis, you need to know the original full URL of the document in question.

IMHO, you have incorrectly interpretted Rick's request, and I hope he can clear things up. I believe Rick is uninterested in your posting of the current information. Rather, he is trying to determine whether or not Kosky is telling the truth regarding his remarks about Jim Lord's page not secret, actually available to the public up until just two weeks ago, etc...

I could be wrong, and Rick is certainly capable of clearing up what I think is your confusion, but just in case he left for work...

Sincerely,

-- Uhmm.. (jfcp81a@prodigy.com), August 21, 1999.

Try also: WWW.N4.HQ.NAVY.MIL/Y2K

-- anymouse (NoWay@No.How), August 21, 1999.

Thank you, Uhmm. That's exactly what I'm looking for.

The currently posted stuff is interesting, of course, but we all know it's been run through the "Spin Cycle" in the last 48 hours.

What I'm looking for is confirmation that the original report was available on a public web page as recently as a couple of weeks ago.

Lewis claims he stumbled upon it and emailed Koskinen, and then the file disappeared the following day. Having met Lewis, I personally trust his story.

But for the rest of the Y2K-watching world, it would be useful to determine whether Lewis is mistaken, Kosky is lying, or whatever.

I understand there are sophisticated terabyte-storing systems which take periodic "snap shots" of everything that's available on the web. If one of these systems could verify the existence of that Excel file, publicly available on the web at some point in July or early August, it will be helpful.

Then we can move on to the next mystery, how the hell did we all miss it?

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), August 21, 1999.

When I search Alexa Archives for the url listed in your post

http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/utilinfo/Master-util-7_1.xls

Here is the message that Alexa gives me

Archive of the Web

Archived page not available

Either the page you are trying to access has not been visited by the Alexa Archiver, or the site owner has requested that this page not be archived.

It's gonna take someone with better skills than I have to figure this one out.

-- mommacarestx (harringtondesignX@earthlink.net), August 21, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

not be archived how convenient

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 21, 1999.

Exactly.

So, the question remains - are there any archiving utilities that routinely ignore requests NOT to archive?

(I had no luck with google either.)

-- mommacarestx (harringtondesignX@earthlink.net), August 21, 1999.

The document may have never "disappeared". The link cited originally was "Master-util-7_1.xls". It later got replaced with "Master-util-8_19.xls". There's a parent document (my link above) which points to the most recent version.

So all these comments about the document being suppressed or removed after Lord's letter are a wild goose chase. The document simply got replaced by the most recent version, and the direct link to the old one was no longer valid.

As for the report itself, it is being taken a bit too seriously. If you read the overview, they are just contacting utilities and asking for self-reported progress. The various grades are basically being given for "say they're ready now", "say they will be ready", and "haven't said." There's no independent Navy verification behind any of these numbers.

On the other hand, this is probably similar to what NERC has to work with, when it issues it's cheery reports on the utilities.

-- You Know... (notme@nothere.com), August 21, 1999.

YouKnow,

What is it you do not understand about the photographic process? Do you expect a person's present new image to 'replace' that image on an earlier photograph? How about if changes to a current file automagically replaced the same info in the backup copy? Maybe you could change the amount on a returned check and thereby credit your current account? I am sure YouCould obtain great wealth with this scheme.

We just want to verify whether Kosky is truthful. Was the page truely available to the public up until two weeks ago? Apparently there are tools which could determine the answer, but the tools indicate the original document was either marked for non-archival, or the agency asked that the page not be distributed to the public. Is this the sign of a not-for-public document and of an agency trying to cover its tracks? Do YouKnow? Why can YouNotUnderstand this simple concept? Why don't you just copy and paste the current document one more time to this thread? What better way to kill this thread? Do YouKnow which of the disinformation practices you are using?

By failing to address the original question, by feigning ignorance of the original issue, and by correctly answering several unrelated questions, you are using disinformation tactics to discredit this thread.

It is an important thread. Officials delayed providing the info regarding the URL until they had covered their tracks. Instead of providing the name of the site, they relayed the cover article to their friends who then relayed it to the public. Given enough time, they will cover all their trakcs.

I remain,

-- Suspicious (Highlybent@aolx.com), August 22, 1999.

This may help:

When I tripped over the damned thing, it was a page of links related to contingency planning. One of the links pointed to a downloadable resource. (i.e., the July Excel spreadsheet -.xls)

I bookmarked the downloadable resource, but I don't seem to have bookmarked the "parent" page, which is where the description of the link would be. (it would have been something like http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/utilinfo/somepage.htm

It may have been on another machine. I'll check later.

But all in all, it's probably not worth the chase. A cursory comparison of the July hardcopy I have and the new August version are identical in format, with updated values.

At the risk of opening a new can of worms, I don't think there is any evidence of a conspiracy to conceal The Truth. It's evolving for them just like everyone else.

As Freud said; "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

No political commentary intended...

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 23, 1999.

I think You Know may have been on the right track. Many of the source documents that led to the original Master List appear to be still available (however briefly; get yours before the rush).

(sorry, hotlink impaired)

Go to http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/

Click on Testing and Operational Evaluation: http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/testing/testing.html

Click on Test Reports and Lessons Learned: http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/testing/testreports.html

There you will find megabytes of public-accessible and downloadable PC-version MSWord files of Naval base y2k evaluations, most dated @ July 15. These files are do not appear to be changed from prior to the "revised" Utilities Master List of 19Aug1999, and maybe they are "straight from the horse's mouth". You be the judge.

These files have been openly accessible since at least a week ago. They may have been "buried" and not advertised, but do not appear to be secret documents. They are not (yet) firewalled, and are not password protected. However, some of them have the "For Official Use Only" stamp on them. Post/quote from them at your own risk; think of it as a possible "copyright" infringement, as it were. Your choise.

My apologize if these sites have been pointed out earlier.

-- anymouse (NoWay@No.How), August 23, 1999.

anymouse, great minds think alike (and so do ours...)

Last night I was wandering through those same acres of test result reports from various navy bases. fascinating stuff.

After reading 12-15 reports from various bases, I was quite surprised that they really haven't found very much to fix. These reports dealt with HVAC, security, fuel distribution, back-up generators, desaslination plants, and much more. Full details-make/model/test method-

I've never seen so much info about mundane systems in one place before. And they really didn't find much. Many bases found nothing at all. A few had show-stoppers (a desalination plant and some obscure process control thing), but all in all, very good news.

I recommend a read before they learn how to prevent directory diving...

It's not secured, but I just don't think it ever occurred to them that anyone else would be interested. (Although frankly, I think lots of it should be secured. Publicizing which bases may have water problems seems dangerous to me)

Going back for another look later.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.