Jim Lord has added a Whats New page, with his comments on the reaction to his report.

http://www.jimlord.to/whatsnew.html

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

Answers

good for him. just want to say you are in my prayers, jim lord, along with any other folks who have the courage to try to look out for the interests of the american public. sheeples that they are.

-- tt (cuddluppy@timewilltell.com), August 24, 1999.

Good post. I just put it on the Free Republic site.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 24, 1999.

Jim's my hero.

-- PH (ag3@interlog.com), August 24, 1999.

Link

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), August 24, 1999.

Yup. 'Guess that answers MY question (The "Where's Jim Lord" thread).

Now, the next week will offer up an interesting scenario.

First: Will AP do a follow up on Lord's response?

Curiouser and Curiouser. . .

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

Sorry to leapfrog your thread, FM. Just thought it was worth a giving it "late-breaking" news status.

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

No apologies necessary.

Good find.

I like sunshine [grin].

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

Thanks Lewis... again.

For archival purposes... in case Tonga goes down and MIT Boston stays up.

Diane

http://www.jimlord.to/ whatsnew.html

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

What's New

"Update--August 23,1999

I have been on travel out of the country and out of touch for a couple of days due to a seminar commitment made several months ago. I have not had a chance to review several things posted on the Internet including an article by Peter deJager on his http://www.year2000.com website. I would point out, however, that any assessment that does not involve studying the June version of the Navy survey which I (and no others) possess can only be based on raw supposition. If Mr. DeJager (or Steve Davis for that matter) do not possess the survey on which the report was based, how can they arrive at any relevant conclusions? Their knee-jerk willingness to jump to conclusions and support the governments position without an examination of the material in question reveals their obvious bias.

The comments that follow will not address Mr. DeJagers article but I will do so in a few days when I return from my trip. Meanwhile, this update is directed toward the governments response to the Pentagon Papers.

First and most importantly, the Navy utility survey used to create the Pentagon Papers of Y2K is real. John Koskinen has admitted this is the case. Thanks to Ted Bridis at AP, who jumped on the story with both feet, the government has provided an updated copy (August1999) of the survey.

Im not certain how meaningful this supposedly current survey is. At this point, no shred of any current or future military utility studies will reach public eyes without a thorough cleansing by some government information management team. In fact, the August survey probably received this kind of careful attention. Incidentally, it seems passing strange that Mr. Koskinen just happened to have a copy of the August survey right there handy as can be when Mr. Bridis arrived at his office.

Mr. Koskinens office makes several points in their efforts to discredit my report on the Navy survey. Their criticism is presented below followed by my own brief comments.

1) The information was previously available on a Navy website accessible to the public.

This is meaningless unless the public is made aware of its existence. The government did nothing of which I am aware to inform the public of this information. Goodness knows, there are certainly enough Y2K activists out there scouring every inch of every suspected site looking for just this kind of information.

2) The report is based on old data.

Right, it goes all the way back to the far, far distant past of six or eight weeks ago. The fact is that two months ago, when the June survey was CURRENT, John Koskinen was roaming the country telling everyone to prepare for a 3-5 day inconvenience.

3) The survey represented a worst case scenario.

Thats good spin and probably even contains an element of truth. That kind of thinking is a standard way to create contingency plans. The burning question is why are the American people not given the same level of concern? Why is our preparation based on a best case, happy- face scenario?

4) If data were pending on a given utility, it was awarded the worst possible score. Specifically, according to the legend on both the June and August versions of the Navy survey the numerical scores used provide a measure of the Likelihood of Failure where:

0 = Not likely to occur
1 = Occurrence is improbable
2 = Occurrence is probable
3 = Occurrence is likely to occur

In other words, if data were missing a score of three was awarded.

This contention is totally refuted by the content of both reports. In the June version, in TWENTY-FIVE instances, cities are shown in a pending status but are given numerical scores of either one or two on the scale shown above. Under this supposed assumption, if no information is available how can the likelihood of failure be improbable?

In the August version of the Navy survey, the reporting format is slightly altered. A fourth possible score is added to signify the Likelihood of Failurethe letter U apparently signifying Unknown although no specific explanation is made. In twenty-seven instances where information is pending the score awarded is U. But in SIXTY- THREE instances scores of one, two or three are given. In other words there is no correlation in either report between pending information and worst possible scores.

The AP report by Mr. Bridis, which was based on the August version of the Navy survey, is somewhat less severe than my assessment of the June version of the survey. It will take some rather time-consuming analysis and comparison but there do appear to be fewer cities with the most serious three score. On the other hand, I believe Mr. Bridis assessment that the number of cities expecting utility failures has dropped to just sixty is in error. If anything, it appears to me that the raw number of cities impacted has risen. For one thing, a number of cities have been added to the list.

I was asked by email several times why I did not put the June survey up on the Internet. I took this action to be certain not to compromise the individual who provided me with the information. I could not, at that time, take the chance that the appearance and format of the data would in some way implicate my source. Now that the government has provided a copy of the August report, I feel it is safe to post this information. It may be several days, however, before I have access to a facility where I can have the document scanned and converted to a pdf format. I will do this as soon as possible, however, and it will go up on the JimLord.to website unaltered except for some marks in the margins of the document I used for counting purposes.

To be frank, picking through these tea leafs is probably not especially enlightening. The real importance of the Navy survey is that it provides compelling evidence the government has consistently downplayed the severity of Y2K when it knew otherwise. If things are indeed better today than two months ago, thats great news but the fact remains, the Navy survey is significantly more grim than the party line.

At this point, the differences between my assessment of this data and the governments take on the same data are relatively meaningless. Now that they have gone to full throttle on the spin machine, I am totally outgunned. I have no intention of fighting that kind of battle with these pros. Dont be surprised if they come after me in a personal way. Its in their nature. When they dont have the facts on their side theyll try to eviscerate the messenger. To all the Y2K believers out there, remember, when all else fails, go back to the data.

I read a story years ago in which a character was described as having the calm, cool confidence of a Christian with four aces. The June survey is our four aces. It says exactly what I described in my Pentagon Papers report. They will try to shift the attention away from this fact. They may try to discredit me personally for my political views. None of those things matter. When all else fails, go back to the data.

My eternal gratitude for the support of so many wonderful people.

Jim Lord

P.S.

I have been highly critical of the mainstream press for failing to ask hard questions about Y2K. Now that the Navy survey has cracked the door open a bit, why dont you guys get into the fray? Here are some suggested questions for these cracker-jack journalists.

What criteria were used to evaluate the utilities in the Navy survey?

Who determined these criteria?

Who evaluated the individual utilities?

Were the cities or utilities involved in the assessment process?

If not, why not?

If an assessment was negative why was the local community not notified?

What criteria were used to downgrade assessments from the June to the August surveys?

Where utilities were graded as probable or likely to fail,

What reports were generated from the Navy survey?

To whom were these reports given?

Was Congress notified of any of the results? If so who?

Were the Army and Air Force Departments tasked to perform similar assessments?

If so, where are the surveys and any reports generated from them?

If not, why not?

Has a combined, military utility assessment been compiled?

If so where is the survey and any reports generated from it?

To whom was it provided?

If not, why not?

You know, I think its a shame you guys cant think these things up for yourself. Why dont you get busy and break this story open now that a crack has been opened up? Are you gonna make some rookie like me do it for you? Or are you going to keep going for the cheap, easy headline and the cookie-cutter story.

One well-known columnist said, when shown my report, Yes, I've seen this. It is a rant by Jim Lord, not a document with any credibility. Mitch Ratcliffe, why dont you move on up to the head of the line? Get in the game, man. You're too good to let this story pass you by."

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.

BTW, there are some great Navy Dot Mil comments down on this thread...

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

And of course, Lewis's "take..."

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

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.

Jim Lord said:

In other words, if data were missing a score of three was awarded. This contention is totally refuted by the content of both reports. In the June version, in TWENTY-FIVE instances, cities are shown in a pending status but are given numerical scores of either one or two on the scale shown above. Under this supposed assumption, if no information is available how can the likelihood of failure be improbable?

Assimilating y2k data is tricky, as Jim shows here when he blows away the contention that all the "3's" merely represented "no response". The problem is that you need to have an IQ of at least 100 to play this game, which is why Y2K Pro, DoomerSuck, SuperPolly, Hoff and Flint are steadily losing.

-- a (a@a.a), August 24, 1999.

Larry Sanger's editorial Re: Lord's interpretation

-- CD (not@here.com), August 24, 1999.

Perhaps a number equal to those who have made purchases from the ads on the Debunking Y2K website? "Fact" Finder, do you expect information providers to live in a cave and wear recycled flour sacks in order to provide valid information about anything?

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), August 24, 1999.

FactFinder:

A. How do you know what was in the June version? Jim says he has the only copy. Can you substantiate your claim?

B. Do you realize how much it costs to produce a video on a VHS tape and ship it to someone? Your claim that he is profiting from this venture is ASININE.

-- a (a@a.a), August 24, 1999.

Factfinder's verbage may be asinine, but it is CONSISTENT with the polly mentality -- ALWAYS attach the messenger, NEVER attack the message. At least not with facts.

(Dude, we need to think up a new name for you. How about "Fartfinger"?)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

Ha! I can always expect some fun feedback here...you guys are really loading the tinfoil cannons now.. ;)

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), August 24, 1999.

"Loading the tinfoil cannons" -- I LOVE IT!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

Lame Jim..... Very lame and too late! Traveling.. hmmmm, Yeah Right!

-- Jake (Jake@Reality.com), August 24, 1999.

A snippet from Jim Lord's website under "source of info".

"The information from the bases and other facilities was compiled into an eight-page spreadsheet that is titled "Utility Master List" and dated June 1999. No other markings appear on the papers. In particular, (and this is of crucial importance) the document is not stamped or labeled with any national security classification markings."

From this I would deduce that the legend Factfinder shows from the August report is not present on the original copy of the June report Jim Lord is talking about. I suspect greatly that he would have mentioned it if it were available. It would not have been smart of him otherwise; expecting to have sooner or later to show the real document in a scanned pdf file on his site if/when the report was confermed to be real, and that he was sure it wouldn't compromise the whistle-blower's identity when he did.

In his "What's New" page, he says:

"Dont be surprised if they come after me in a personal way. Its in their nature. When they dont have the facts on their side theyll try to eviscerate the messenger. To all the Y2K believers out there, remember, when all else fails, go back to the data."

He must be scared. I would. I wonder if he'll suddenly turn around a la DeJager on us...If he does, I'll keep his advice in mind and go back to the data.

My heart is with you Mr. Lord.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 24, 1999.

If Mr. Lord's is in a reponding mood, he needs to address statements that were made on his initial home page the day he released the Navy's utility survey. On this page, which for some reason is no longer linked, Lord talked about giving a speech entitled, "Y2k Surprises-Why It Won't Turn Out like You Think."

"It was the first time the Navy Department survey information was revealed to the public," Lord wrote. He added that in the speech, "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."

That's an interesting conclusion in light of the gravity he placed on the Navy report's of projected Januaury 2000 utility failures. Now, this can be interpreted a number of ways, so clairification is needed.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), August 25, 1999.

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

I'd recommend against posting a photograph of the document. You would be endangering your source, even though the document is not classified. It is possible to tell what copy machines were used, and in what order. This could lead a search to zero in on your "deep throat." Nothing would be gained by posting it. The administration has already admitted that it exists substantially as you have already described it.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 25, 1999.