CBS TV Report Talks about the Navy Document

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Just as I was leaving for work, I turned the tv on, and low and behold, the reporter was talking about the navy document and paraphrased briefly an outline of the report. He (the reporter) said the administration's response was that "they felt that the navy document's results were overly pessimistic". Wow. Blew me away. Take this to the cleaners with all the Polly's and see if you can get them to at least prepare a little. It will make our lives less stressful come 1/1/00. Has anyone else seen this report. And I do apologize if this has been already reported in this forum. I just turned on the machine and started typing.

-- thomas saul (thomas.saul@yale.edu), August 20, 1999

Answers

Very interesting.

Have they decided whether the documents are authentic yet? There has been some interesting comments and research done on some other threads.

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), August 20, 1999.


Report from Wisconsin:

This morning the report was mention at 6:30 (CT)ABC news with Koskinens response that it was "worst case scenario contingency plan".

At &:00 am story was not carried: They talked about "beware of Y2K scams" (discussed plot tto blow up Alaska pipeline).

And the State Y2K coordinator had a report that the "ONLY" (he stressed that word) possible problem was people panic for "a day or two) at the end of December.

In other words, the politicians and masses have decided that Y2K is a non-event and nothing will get in their way. Its very sad but apparently (from reaction to "Y2K Penatagon Papers") inevitable.

There will be no widespread awareness as a result of this.

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), August 20, 1999.


Yes, its been confirmed --- but now spun as "overly pessimistic" (WHAT IN THE WORLD DOES THAT MEAN) or "old news".

You can find a days worth of reading below on this subject, including responses from Ed Yourdon.

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), August 20, 1999.


To Moore Dinty moore: About did they(the news channel) report the navy document as authentic. I think they said "it was reported" and then came an immediate response from the Billy Administration. So again, it may look like no investigative work was done to confirm!

-- thomas saul (thomas.saul@yale.edu), August 20, 1999.

On the way to work this morning a local AM station 620 WTMJ out of Milwaukee had the story. Local focus was that Sheboygan was on the list for water and sewer problem. They also quoted Koskinen as calling the report as overly pessimistic. I frankly was very skeptical of the report when it came out yesterday. Given that the Feds have NOT repudiated it as a fraud I find it very troubling indeed. I look forward to seeing the actual documents, and any supporting information they contain.

-- kozak (kozak@formerusaf.guv), August 20, 1999.


Can somebody PLEASE tell me how a SURVEY can be pessimistic OR a scenerio? I thought a survey gathered information. Guess I better re- adjust the old tin foil hat, ehh Pro?

Getting more pissssssssssssed by the minute.

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), August 20, 1999.


Yes,

I'm afraid I have to agree that it is probably legit. I was very sceptical, also, yesterday. After reading all the info on the other threads this morning...I think I need a rolaid! :<

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), August 20, 1999.


Paul Harvey this morning carried the Navy report as his second lede item, after the Turkey quake. Drudge is headlining it with a link to a Washington Post article that, lo and behold, treats the Navy report as straight news. Kosky issues the usual caveat, but the Post also notes that the document was pulled from a public Navy web site several weeks ago with no explanation. Also, the Post mentions that the report was updated only TWO weeks ago.

-- Cash (cash@sandcarry.com), August 20, 1999.

Koskinen has publicly verified that the Navy document is legitimate and he is frantically trying to cover up the stink by saying it's overly pessimistic. This is the first real challenge the gov't has had on its pollyanna perception of Y2K, the first report that has gotten the attention of the news media. I suspect some, probably only a few, reporters will start to pay attention to the Y2K severity question and maybe start digging into it a bit.

I also think this is the first of a number of events that will appear between now and January 1st that will raise people's awareness about Y2K. If this happens often enough, the American public may actually start to think seriously about an issue, something that very rarely happens in this country.

On second thought, probably not.

-- cody varian (cody@y2ksurvive.com), August 20, 1999.


Let's see how the Stock Market reacts to this.......

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 20, 1999.


Didn't Koskinen allude to other similar reports done by the Army and the Air Force? If so, these would have reports on many other cities that do not have Naval bases near them. Perhaps a Freedom Of Information request for these documents would prove very interesting.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), August 20, 1999.

It kills me to say this, as a former USAF puke, but the Navy has always been the most forthright and politically incorrect of the services. Blunt speaking is not something the Air Force or Army are practiced in nowadays. We may owe the Navy a lot for getting this out front.

-- kozak (kozak@formerusaf.guv), August 20, 1999.

1 by land--2 by sea? did i get it right?

-- moonbeam. (dogs@zianet.com), August 20, 1999.

Several earlier threads deal with this Navy report. For those just coming on board, here's the list. They're all worth reading through. In order of posting:

The Pentagon Papers of Y2k

You Can't Handle The Truth

Well if Jim Lord is to be believed, this should just about do it for the polys

JIM LORD WILL BE ON Y2KNEWS RADIO TO DISCUSS THE PENTAGON PAPERS!

Koskinen's "Take" On Jim Lord's Pentagon Papers (Steve Davis--Coalition 2000)

Includes a long post by Ed Yourdon

Jim Lord: Why I am watching intently but with skepticism

Diane J. Squire - C4I - Jim Lord ???

Lord's Y2K Pentagon Papers confirmed in Washington Post; Koskinen singing a different tune

NEW URL FOR JIM LORD

Ed Yourdon comments on the Pentagon Papers

Links to the 'Koskinen's Take' thread; other comments follow

Pentagon Papers, planned "leak"??

I can no longer access Jim Lord's site

Is anyone familiar with the Navy website Kosky says existed?

Drudge picks up link to Lord story

Lord's Pentagon Papers are the tip of the iceberg...

Wanted: Jim Lord's PDF Files

And the beat goes on...

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), August 20, 1999.


aaargh. Italics OFF...

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), August 20, 1999.


Now are they off?

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), August 20, 1999.

Tom... ya ever just want "OFF?"

;-D

Diane

Trying to add all new thread links to this one...

Koskinen's "Take" On Jim Lord's Pentagon Papers (Steve Davis-- Coalition 2000))

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

(Still locating the latest and will add in a moment)

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


Diane, am I missing a link here or something? The title is Ed's comments, but there is what appears only a partial paragraph quote. Is there a fuller commentary from Ed? Thanks!

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), August 20, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ