http://www.jimlord.to/secretsurvey.cfm

Secret Government Study Reveals Massive Y2K Problems in American Cities

How many days could New York City survive without water and sewer services? How long would it take to evacuate eight million people in the dead of winter? Would thousands die in the process? Tens of thousands? More? When would the rioting and looting begin? How many National Guard troops would it take to control the largest city in the nation? What unthinkable devastation would be wrought on the global financial system? How might our enemies seize on the ensuing panic and confusion?

Are these the crazed speculations of a Y2K alarmist? Not if you know what the US Navy and Marine Corps know. According to a June 1999 report titled, "Master Utility List," they believe "total failure is likely" for New York City's water and sewer systems because of Y2K problems.

And they're holding this information back.

The Navy Department assessment is not limited to New York City; it covers all their shore facilities in the world-nearly 500 locations. The results are horrifying. They expect more than 26 million American citizens in 125 cities to be without electricity, water, gas or sewer services next January. Many more would be affected in foreign countries. London, England for example is expected to experience failures of all four types of utilities. Many of the people impacted by these failures would be military personnel and their families.

And the Navy Department isn't telling anyone.

Forty-five of the cities named in the survey have population greater than 100,000. Eight of the nation's dozen largest metropolitan areas are af-fected. Here's what the Navy expects:

Dallas-no water. Washington DC and Philadelphia-no gas Baltimore, Houston, New York and Miami--no water or sewer. Atlanta-no water or gas San Antonio-no water or electricity. Fort Worth and New Orleans-no water, gas or sewer services.

And the Navy Department is saying nothing.

_____________

Much more at the site referenced (linked?) above.

-- Steve (genroberts@aol.com), August 19, 1999

Answers

Thank you for posting this important information.I have made copies and plan to send them out to people I know.

-- maggie (aaa@aaa.com), August 19, 1999.

"Sierra Electric Cooperative, Truth or Conseq. NM"

listed in Electrical Utilities expected to fail. A town of 6000 in southern NM on the Navy's list?

al-D, is there something you're (excuse me -- you,re) not=telling-us??

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), August 19, 1999.

If the Navy did this, so did the Army and the Airforce. Would one of the big brains on this forum please do some digging for us land lubbers?????????????????? This could well be the CLUE we have all been looking for to fine tune our preps!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Interesting stuff, but the critical question still remains unanswered. I'm less concerned about actual failures than I am about the duration of those failures. I find it a little puzzling that projected length of failures was not also documented.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Looks like something made up to scare people to me.

-- Looks are deceeving (Looks@likeascaretatictome.com), August 19, 1999.

What I don't get is that Charlotte NC is listed as "probable partial failure" for electric, yet not one NC power utility is listed as "at risk". Is this because some of our power is supplied by outside companies?

Florida looks terrible. Any thoughts?

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nohwere.com), August 19, 1999.

Nevermind....need more coffee.

-- zzzzzzzzz (z@z.z), August 19, 1999.

Roland, you might want to check the list again. Charlotte is on the list for probable failures in water and sewage, not electricty. Again, though, we don't know for how long these problems are expected to last.

-- Hiway (HIway441@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Hiway -

You're right, thanks. Those little "x's" don't line up very well. I thought Duke was in pretty good shape, or so they say. Glad I'm packin a big water bag!

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), August 19, 1999.

Roland, check with Russ Kelly if you still have any concerns about Duke Energy. It's my understanding that he lives close to Oconee Nuclear station, located outside of Seneca, SC. I suspect he's got some pretty could contacts with Duke. I live one state over, but not too far from there. www.russkelly.com

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

FLAME AWAY,

I don't claim to be a "big brain," but if one of those comes along to research Army and Air Force potential investigations, brick walls might be the order of the day. I suspect Jim's Navy connections may have allowed him to unearth this.

Anyway, here's Jim's email address for would-be sleuthers.

JimLordY2K@aol.com

You are hereby ordered to report back here! [grin]

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Looking at the list for Massachusetts cities, the only "city" listed is Weymouth. This is a moderate-sized TOWN. Near as I can tell, all the New England "cities" are coastal. The write-up says it was based on a "US Navy/Marine Corps" survey that "was conducted to determine the rish of utility failures at MILITARY FACILITIES". So my question is, were "cities" that are not military facilities not included in this survey, so that their absence from this report does not necessarily indicate of good news???

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Hummm. Guess I'll have to play around with this one. (Coffee first).

Also, last night on the evening news--two local TV stations--mentioned Santa Cruz residents had a "technical" glitch with their water treatment supply and all residents were asked to ration their water usage by 50%.

Lemme find that first.

Diane

(Thanks for the heads up, FM.)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

This, too is interesting, folks. From Jim Lord's opening page:

"I recently gave an hour-long speech titled "Y2K Surprises-Why It Won't Turn Out Like You Think." It was the first time the Navy Department survey information was revealed in public. In the speech, I discussed why I don't think the national electrical grids will fail and why I believe water is a much greater utility risk than electricity. (Inci-dentally, this supposition is clearly supported by the Navy Department survey.)

I also showed why an electronic run on the banking system is a greater danger than a cash panic. I went on to explain why January 2000 will not be the peak of the Year 2000 Crisis and why the real peak is 9-18 months down the road."

In light of the Navy Depatment survey Lord posted, he still feels the "peak" will be 9-18 months after the transition?

Again, it's not the intital problems themselves, it's their duration that is of ultimate conseqeunce. Obviously Lord is not speaking of continual utility problems extending for nine months on the magnitude of the Navy list. New York without water for this timeframe would bring down the system long before Lord's projected peak cycle. So there's a link to Lord's understanding of the problem that he has yet to articulate.

The question remains. If the Navy took the time to compile a Master Utility list of projected failures, wouldn't they also have surveyed the anticipated duration of these failrues? No power in Hawkinsville, GA for a day or two is not a prompter to move. No power for a month, that's a different story.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Oooh boy. Some report comes out by some guy who sells Y2K crap for a living stating that this is an official Navy/Marine document he received from some un-named "confidential" source. Do the Tinfoils hold this document up to the same rigour that they give to official government documents where the source is not hiding? Of course not - they're called Tinfoils for a reason...

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Pro:

My take is "where there's smoke there's fire." The question is, "how big the fire." Pieces are missing here and that's troubling. But the truth has a tendency to kick up a lot of dust before it reveals itself, so we shall see.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Y2K Pro,

Rather than assuming that everyone here is simply a dullard, why don't you request the document from the Navy Dept. through the Freedom of Information Act, as Jim Lord encourages? I intend to, then I'll make my judgement as to the veracity of Mr. Lord's claims. Why don't you try that as well?

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), August 19, 1999.

Great read... so scary... Florida looks bad... counting down....

My only response to the question of how long there will be problems is the same as I've read recently here... three days to fix something they haven't been able to fix in three years???

If the year 2000 brings that kind of magic, I'll goof off until year end and let the "magic" fix my stuff... it'll take so much less time!!... really...

keep the faith...

-- booann (cantsay@lovemyjob.edu), August 19, 1999.

y2k pro,

the 'guy' you refer to as 'someone who sells y2k crap for a living' betrays incredible stupidity. jim lord has been researching - and writing about - y2k for several years now, and is as straight as they come. he has not been a doomer or tinfoil or whatever other terms you think up and put on these posts. i've had several correspondences with him myself, and am sure that he is not getting rich from y2k.

his leaked document is a blockbuster.

wake up

-- lou (lanny1@ix.netcom.com), August 19, 1999.

And then there is Gary North's commentary on this report...

http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/5835

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Saw this first at Norths site and even he says take it as INFROMATION, unconfirmed as yet.

Right now its in the rumour status, but Jim Lord, by all accounts I've heard, is very trustworthy. Actually I'm a little suprised it doesn't include more cities. If you connect this with a post about two weeks earlier about the Airforce near Boston buying 8 large generators (an apparently OFFICIAL procurement document) it all makes sense.

So unlike you, Y2K Pro, people here don't assume things and buy into every story that fits our personal agenda.. If you can prove this if illegit we'll all give you some of the respect you apparently crave. But the source has been a lot more reliable than any "nightly news".

-- Join Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), August 19, 1999.

We must conjure Thomas Barnett for his take on this.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), August 19, 1999.

"Actually I'm a little suprised it doesn't include more cities. If you connect this with a post about two weeks earlier about the Airforce near Boston buying 8 large generators (an apparently OFFICIAL procurement document) it all makes sense."

Jon, that brings me back to my question of why aren't other cities listed. Since the Greater Boston town of "Weymouth, MA" was listed, I would expect the airforce facility you refer to to have been listed as either Lexington or Bedford, MA, as opposed to Boston. I also wonder whether the report included all military facilities, or only Navy and Marine Corps.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Still looking for colloboration from Y2K archives but found this: US Navy Y2K Liason to States

As I recall, the Navy Liason officiers were tasked to study their respective assigned cities and regions to odentify threats, response reources and basic needs in event of infrastructure disruption.

It will be interesting to see if any major media picks "The Pentagon Papers of Y2K" up.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), August 19, 1999.

Brooks,

Weymouth, MA is the next town over from me, and that is where the Weymouth Navel Base is located. Seems like this report strictly reflects the town where a Naval Base is located. The report mentions Boston Gas as being a problem, and Boston Gas services a large area of eastern Massachusetts.

There is another base in eastern Mass, but I think it is an Army Base. This report was Navy/Marine.

-- flb (fben4077@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

Right, it's an AirForce Base in Lexington....

-- flb (fben4077@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

Take 5 minutes out now to sit back and visualize ...

Loss of electricity to pump and treat water ... water is shut off because it is not clean and authorities want to slow down the sewer back-ups ... no sewer, no water, no electricity ... fires everywhere due to bumbling attempts in the dark to use candles, lanterns, generators ... not enough water pressure to fight the fires ... millions and millions and millions of people scared, thirsty, cold, having to go outside and be exposed to relieve themselves (average need every 2 hours to void) ...

Looks to be a long time (complications) before services restored. When the water comes back on, can you foresee the broken pipe factor? There are not enough plumbers to deal with this.

Have you built your outhouse yet? Do you have compost pile yet? Quick lime? Waste digesting enzymes? Scores of boxes of Baby Wipes? At least 300 rolls of TP? A way to protect yourself on outhouse trips? A way to protect yourself from prolonged cold and disease? A way to protect yourself from desperate people, millions and millions and millions of them?

Think about what Jim Lord's shreadsheet actually respresents, and realize that it is only some of the navy bases, not any Army or Air Force bases. Only some military locations in the United States. Think globally ... 6 billion persons with the life-support infrastructure and artificial computerized carrying capacity yanked away simultaneously systemically.

How are you going to beat the odds of meltdown and extinction?

@}->-- 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 @}->-- 3~0 3~0 3~0

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 19, 1999.

Ah, yes the Y2K Pro's of the world begin to stir in their beds, unaware that the nightmare they are experiencing may actually be a premonition of a reality fast approaching...

This document looks legit. It is not much more "over the top" than the published works of the Naval War College. Note however, that when the anonymous poster from .mil space, c4i, posted similar scenarios and claimed they were being contemplated at the highest levels, the pollyannas laughed him off the forum.

Very soon, the laughter will cease.

-- a (a@a.a), August 19, 1999.

Sorry, that would be 'Western Mass' where the Air Force Base is located. Weymouth Naval Base is in Eastern Mass.

Need coffee!

-- flb (fben4077@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

'Gotta run, (I'll check back in later today because this looks like it will become a most interesting thread) but before I do, here's an excercise just for fun.

Let's say the document is legitimate.

You are in Naval Public Affairs.

How will you respond to reporters' questions?

I can't offer prizes to the one who most closely nails the response(I do have a great lentil recipe though)[grin], but if you're close, maybe you should consider a new career in public relations?

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

So, what do you think the .gov will do about this:

a, Deny it - claim it is false. b, Ignore it - make no reference to it - claim not to have read it if queried. c, Acknowledge it as a work in progress - prosecute whoever leaked secret information. Say it is a "worst case scenario" for hypothetical planning purposes. d, Build On It - Supply forthcoming and truthful information to defuse a panic reaction.

I suspect several Op Centers across the USA are actively debating this right now.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), August 19, 1999.

Gee Bill, we cross-posted.

'Guess we were wondering the same thing at the same time?

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

I hope this isn't true. Think of all the polly's that will die. I may even have to kill a few when they try to take my food. I'm really not up to this, but if I have to do it, I will. Overblown optimism and plain stupidity can kill. If this happens, what a shame!!

-- Larry (cobol.programmer@usa.net), August 19, 1999.

Jim Lord's reputation is at stake here, I don't think he would have stuck his neck out this far if the document wasn't legitimate, nor would Gary North for that matter.

-- woes me (woesme@woesssmeee!.com), August 19, 1999.

After several net searches with different search engines for

+navy +u.s. +master +utility +list

on the HotBot search I finally came up with a link that looked very promising. Unfortunately I couldn't gain access. Here is the url, maybe someone else can get in.

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

-- mommacarestx (harringtondesignX@earthlink.net), August 19, 1999.

Brooks is right.

This only talks about Navy-related cities. It doesn't deal with all the rest. If there are this many on the Navy list, that doesn't bode well for the rest of the nation/world.

Let's hope and pray someone in the Navy will take Jim's persuasion to heart and begin to speak out.

-- Walter Skold (wsvnsk2@juno.com), August 19, 1999.

BillP --- Nah.

e -- say it is truthful but everything that happens can be fixed in 72 hours.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 19, 1999.

Coincidence?

DJIA down 106 pts (1%)in one hour. Nasdaq down 44 pts (2%) in one hour.

http://www.nasdaq-amex.com/asp/majorindices_java.stm

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), August 19, 1999.

If this is legit, this should be one heck of a bump.

Is our military capable of overcoming these types of problems?

Are terrorists y2k compliant?

If this is true, it is so overwhelming, how would you sleep at night if you were in a top level position of leadership?

Another day, another series of questions.....

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

******My Take for FM************

They'll claim they created these documents because they've always wanted fuel cells and generators and this was the only way to get them justified.

******There are more than 40 military installations running on fuel cells, see plugpower.com*******

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), August 19, 1999.

For a little water aside-trip, see...

Emergency Water Rationing In Santa Cruz Curtails Residents' Water Supply Technical Treatment Glitch

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GYS

Okay, now I can focus on this. Lets just see what we can dig up as supporting confirmation.

Doncha just *love* these dot mil info challenges?

Diane

BTW, check out: Cities At Risk

http:// www.jimlord.to/CitiesatRisk.cfm

44 cities where "total failure is likely."

San Jose CA 782,000 -- Sewer utilities. An "x" in the column indicates that utility is expected to fail.

To my knowledge there is no military facility/base in San Jose but there IS a big airport and all the Silicon Valley defense contractors (et. al.) including nearby Mountian View's (?) NASA Ames Research Center (which according to a friendly "e" tip from an insider a couple month's ago, received orders to "secure" the facilities for anticipated Y2K "problems). Also Moffet Field?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

I have tried per a post above to go to www.jimlord.to/sourceofInfo.cfm and now have tried this site's suggested www.jimlord.to/secretsurvey.cfm

On BOTH attempts, I cannot get the pc to budge! No error message, no words to the effect "server cannot be...etc." Just will not move at all when I hit the ENTER key! Can anyone help here...this is spooky, considering the nature of the Jim Lord revelation. Thanks!

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

I think his site is being pounded by too many hits right now. I doubt it's hacking. The cat is out of the bag and his stuff has already been posted on multiple forums.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 19, 1999.

As a resident of arguably THE Navy town in the US (San Diego, CA), I find it very interesting that the only CA cities that are on any of the lists are considered "total", but none of them are CA's Big Three (LA, SF, San Diego). San Jose is the fourth largest city in this state, I believe.

Coronado is an extremely well-to-do island enclave right near SD, National City might as well be in the city proper, and Fallbrook (home of just a whole mess o' Navy napalm) is in far North San Diego County.

Hmmm...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 19, 1999.

BTW, someone may want to check the Cities listed against this dot mil list...

The U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command (SBCCOM)

http://www.sbccom.army.mil/

Domestic Preparedness -- 120 Cities

The ultimate goal of the Domestic Preparedness Team is to train and assess 120 cities. These cities include list...

http:// in1.apgea.army.mil:80/ops/dp/fs/fs_120c.html

Search

http:// www.sbccom.army.mil:8090/compass

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

Mac,

Seal Beach in upper Orange County (SoCal) IS on Lord's list and IS a big dot mil area.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

Don't know 'nothing 'bout California... however, the report ("Impact on Military Readiness", page 5) highlights Mechanicsburg PA. Mechanicsburg is indeed the site of the Navy Ships Parts Control Center.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), August 19, 1999.

Walter wrote,

"This only talks about Navy-related cities. It doesn't deal with all the rest. If there are this many on the Navy list, that doesn't bode well for the rest of the nation/world. "

That was my observation as well. I think we should view this as equal to how a corporation would view their areas of weakness in planning contingencies. The difference is that some of the areas where some form of failure is apparently absolute is also where vital military installations are located.

The only possible explanation for the US government not being more open about the future disruptions is because they don't want to raise the already high possibility of war or terrorist attacks.

I'm a little torn about the disclosure of this information. But dammit, to sacrifice the people of this country because they've been kept in the dark about such possibilities and probabilities is absolutely criminal.

Mike

===========================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

I'm a doomer like anybody here, but the report referred only to the fact that the Navy facilities are "at the mercy of local utilities". Thus IF the locals failed, certainly the Navy facilities would be at risk and this risk should be identified.

However, this is NOT the same thing as reporting that the Navy has done some kind of magic detailed survery of local utility y2k readiness at the technical level and found them wanting. I don't think the Navy knows that any better than we do. Only the engineers working at each utility on y2k remediations specifically have anything relevant to say on this point - and so far things don't look so bad in that area.

-- Ct Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), August 19, 1999.

A very nicely formatted version of the paper has been posted at the Free Republic website.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), August 19, 1999.

It will be interesting to watch "The Spin" our government puts on this. You know they are going to try to take the wind out of the sails.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), August 19, 1999.

The only thing that bothers me is that there are some CLEARLY Army bases (Watertown, NY; Seneca Falls, NY), though the Seneca Falls Depot MIGHT have Marine impacts (due to twhat is stored there, asuming it's still open) and Drum MIGHT have Marine impacts (Training etc, as it's home to the 10th Mountain), and they left out where they print the payroll. though that is NOT done on a "base" per se, but in a federal office building and a remote (from the main building ) compound here in Cleveburgh. The finance Center is HARDLY remote from people, as I drive by it a minimum of twice a day.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 19, 1999.

"I'm a little torn about the disclosure of this information"

Michael,

I felt torn as well. If this is accurate, do we really want to broadcast it to the world?

Isn't that foolish?

I agree that lulling people to sleep, and encourging people to not prepare appropriately is criminal. How do you (as a nation)alert citizens without compromising national security?

I really cannot think of an answer to that question.

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

I felt torn as well. If this is accurate, do we really want to broadcast it to the world?

Yes. I'm tired of trusting the government to protect me. They're obviously not doing a very good job with this three-day snowstorm shit.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 19, 1999.

It seems Jim Lord is taking this VERY seriously:

Potential Repercussions

I don't imagine the government (the Navy De-partment in particular) is going to be very pleased that this information has made its way into the sunlight. If we all do our job, they are going to come under some pretty intense scrutiny. Several people who have seen this report opined that I could be in financial, legal or even physical jeop-ardy. Quite frankly, that kind of stuff is of little concern to me. I could not withhold this informa-tion and live with myself. No person of honor and integrity could.

As a precaution, I have registered my Internet domain name- JimLord.to--in Tonga, an island nation in the South Pacific. I have also hidden away several copies of the Navy Department documentation and my Internet files in safe keep-ing in several states. Friends are standing by to keep this information in the public eye. Just in case.

This stuff needs to see the light of day. I intend to do everything in my power to make that happen. Besides, you the reader are the best protection I could have. The more of you there are, the safer I become. Do your part and get this critical infor-mation into the hands of as many people as you can. Help keep Jim Lord out of jail (grin).

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), August 19, 1999.

Hey CT,

The report actually does differentiate cities that are "probable", etc. for failures and even what types of failures. Its existence assumes SOME sort of assessment.

Reread.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Nothere, what all of us really need, not just the Navy, is precisely that assessment. That would be the real earth- shaker, if they have some magic way of knowing the ready status of places nobody else seems to know much about. This would be of much greater value than the Lord-transmitted info, which does no more than state, essentially:

"The Navy has determined that certian port operational and housing facilities are dependent on local utilities."

-- Ct Vronsky (Vronsky@Anna.com), August 19, 1999.

Losing water in lower Manhattan isn't simply a matter of having to drink Evian at South Street Seaport. No water means no fire-fighting capability, means every finance house (including NYSE and the NY Federal Reserve) is CLOSED. Citicorp closed, Chase Manhattan closed, Goldman Sachs closed, and on and on into the worst-case scenario of cascading cross-defaults. I've read that 3 trillion in money transfers get cleared through NY daily. No water in the Big Apple? Society ossifies.

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), August 19, 1999.

Diane, are you still wondering what it would take to make President Worm stand up like a man and announce his elaborate 'plan' on how to protect his flock?

This is it, baby. If THIS makes it's way into the public spin machine (media), he will be forced to save the sheeple from themselves. Jim Lord lying is about as likely as Clinton telling the truth........

BTW....Thank you Jim. You're a hero in MY book of heroes.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 19, 1999.

No water? Then sprinkler fire system no work. Rules say, must close. Sorry. Everything closed until further notice. Decay.

-- h (h@h.h), August 19, 1999.

pondering this...

Gary North is obviously very aware of these documents.

Gary North will be a guest on Art Bell tonight.

Art Bell has an audience in excess of 8 million listeners.

Will this be a major focus of the interview tonight?

Will the push to have this information made public via the Freedom of Information Act be part of the shows agenda?

A lot of people who have no idea or access to this information may know about it tomorrow.

How long will it take for Drudge to pick it up?

Remember that prediction/assessment that awareness would pick up substantially by the middle of August? Kinda chilling, huh?

Anyone remember the thread?

Mike

=================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Steve has a direct line to Koskinen.

This IS a public list, so F.Y.I. ...

Subject: [civicprep] RE: Jim Lord
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 13:19:58 -0400
From: "Steve Davis" steve@davislogic.com
To: "civicprep" civicprep@4hlists.org

>From the Civic Preparedness discussion list. To post messages to this list, address them to civicprep@4hlists.org.
------------------------------

I am working to verify or debunk this ASAP and will let you know ASAP. I would DEFINETLY NOT spread this around as fact at this point.

Good luck!

Steve Davis, President, DavisLogic
PO Box 394, Simpsonville, MD 21150
410.730.5677 -

http://www.DavisLogic.com/

http://www.coalition2000.org

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

On the Internet? Sure Steve. No problem. Anxiously awaiting Bill's speech. :)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 19, 1999.

Thanks Diane, authentication is important.

Assuming this is a valid document, it was either leaked intentionally or covertly. Since it is public information without any security attached (odd) it would have to be made available to the public at some point.

If it was leaked intentionally then I believe we have begun the END game and will soon see major actions on the part of the Federal government. If it was released covertly then there should be some resistance with regard to releasing it to the public.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@tottacc.com), August 19, 1999.

Ray, great points.

That September 1 date for the "transition period" seems not too far fetched now.

Could this be our government planting information, through the media (scapegoats, as recently referenced by "Researcher") that will actually create a snowball effect in awareness and even instigate panic?

The government spin would be "we kept this from you to avoid creating this kind of panic" while it was all strategy in the first place.

Anyone know the link to that "August" thread? I'm off to do some digging.

Mike

============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

What I do know about Jim Lord is through listening to him speak at the Seattle Y2K Conference in February, then chatting with him a bit afterwards. (Ashton & Leska were there too).

Jim REALLY impressed me as a straight-shooter and an ex-career Navy guy. I would say he takes his "oath" seriously. (Kind'a like Hardliner).

Just my personal opinion.

Back to "research."

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

This just in...

Subject: [civicprep] Navy Assessments
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:13:42 -0400
From: "Steve Davis" steve@davislogic.com
To: "civicprep" civicprep@4hlists.org

>From the Civic Preparedness discussion list. To post messages to this list, address them to civicprep@4hlists.org.
------------------------------

I have gotten to what I think is the bottom of this issue. This information comes directly from John Koskinen.

In summary: The Navy report referenced by Mr. Lord was on a web site publicly available until a few weeks ago (not just to people passing along "secret government documents"). The report reflected an attempt by the armed services to begin to collect assessment information about infrastructures in the areas in which we have bases. Like everyone else, the services were having a lot of trouble earlier this year getting people to tell them anything.

The ratings were based on anecdotal information that was updated over time and do not reflect "the official government assessment of any kind. Most significantly, which Jim does not note and may not have known (although he made no inquiries that John knows of ) the instructions were to put a "3" (risk of failure) as the default if information was not available. Earlier this year when base commanders and others were trying to determine the status of local infrastructures here and around the world there wasn't much information available, which is why there were so many "3"s.

The lack of local information was one of the reasons the White House launched the "Community Conversations" initiative in May and why DoD has a related initiative they have asked all their base commanders to lead in their local communities, either by supporting the communities conversation or helping to organize one in the absence of any other facilitators.

Third, the people the leadership at DoD and the services care most about are their troops and the advice sent to them by the Secretary of the Navy -- which is anything but alarmist -- reflects the low level of risks from Y2K as seen by the department leadership. (But they did recommend personal preparedness and continue to do so.)

John and I both agree that, as we move through the fall, we will have more than enough interesting and important matters to pursue. In other words, we won't need to be making mountains out of molehills to keep things interesting.

The moral of this story is to always hold back on assuming these types of reports are 100% accurate until someone takes the time to look for the truth in these stories.

Best wishes, Steve

(Please feel free to send this to anyone who may have gotten the earlier messages)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

Great, now we have Koskinen's spin on it. I wonder which website it had been on, and why it was removed. Duh...

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 19, 1999.

Snip from Steve:

"The moral of this story is to always hold back on assuming these types of reports are 100% accurate until someone takes the time to look for the truth in these stories. "

Well let's see, can we assume they are 1% accurate or how about 23.5% accurate, maybe 99% accurate?? Wonder how much time it will take for SOMEONE to look into the truth of these stories, maybe a few months!!

Still don't know if this was intentionally leaked or not but the MORAL of this story STINKS!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@tottacc.com), August 19, 1999.

Mike

is this what you are looking for?

y2k transition period(1 September 199 through 31 March 2000)....

link:http://www.defencelink.mil/specials/y2k/mission_fcivil

-- maggie (aaa@aaa.com), August 19, 1999.

Brooks-- To answer your question: The list of cities from the report includes only those cities where there is a naval or Marine presence. I believe that the word "shoreline" was also in there. Therefore, if your non-Navy city is not listed, it does not necessarily mean that your town's utilities are fine.

-- Ann M. (hismckids@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

This story is now on TV, the radio, AP Breaking News, all over the Internet, etc. Fast work, folks!

Odd thing is, it's not the most graphic or alarming or even most informative of the reports to come out lately, but it is spreading like wildfire. Hhhmmm.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 20, 1999.

See...

Subj: An Open Letter to Jim Lord (Sent By E-Mail From A Navy Dot Mil)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001H8i

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

Hot links...

How did Koskinen hear about the Navy Document? I told him.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001HGi

"Y2K Pentagon Papers" - "Secret Papers" Back ONLINE - NAVFAC Master Utilities Y2K Preparaedness Status Spreadsheet Explained

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001HGI

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

From spring of 1998 through spring of 1999, military obsessed with getting own systems straight. Starting in spring of 1999, they start getting obsessed with their dependencies on local infrastructure, a subject they are going full bore on right now, especially abroad, where things do indeed look pretty bad for several bases. They are definitely in a "mania" phase right now on the subject, with too much hype and fear-mongering floating about. The half-baked nature of the report shows that in spades. Much better info is flowing now that people with rank are running around with their hair on fire, so the picture will clear up considerably in coming weeks. Bottom line from my knowledge vantage point (Naval War College project on Y2K) is that so-called host nation dependencies are a very serious threat abroad, but probably fairly minor in the U.S. proper. U.S. military with lots of workarounds and systems options within US, but much less so in abroad situations.

Tom Barnett

-- Thomas Barnett (barnettt@nwc.navy.mil), August 22, 1999.