The original June 1999 Navy utility survey has been posted on my website at www.JimLord.to (click on "What's New"). It is in pdf format and unfortunately is VERY large -- 12 megs -- and takes a long time to load. My apologies but I only had an eight page paper version to work with. In fact one of the reason it took so long to get up on the site is that the file was larger than the AOL email engine would allow and I had to snail mail it on a zip drive to my webmaster.

As you will see, it is formatted the same as the updates posted by the Navy at www.nfesc.navy.mil and carries the same legend. The only noticable changes are that I used a highlighter pen to mark the utilities that were assessed with scores of "2" or "3." This makes the document a little easier to read.

Also, for those who haven't seen it yet, the second update on the site contains significant DOD documentation I uncovered on the net which seriously disputes the Navy/Koskinen contention that the Navy survey was some sort of "worst-case" assessment.

Included is a link to a DOD document entitled "Commander's Y2K Preparedness Handbook" which is the fundamental guidance document sent to all military commanders. You will disconver there that all the military services were tasked to assess transportation, telecommunications, health care facilities, financial institutions and public services such as fire, police etc in each community.

There is much yet to be revealed with these military assessments.

Jim Lord

-- Jim Lord (JimLordY2K@aol.com), September 18, 1999

Answers

Thank you Mr. Lord. Thank you very much.

-- Carol (glear@usa.net), September 18, 1999.

Saw you on CSPAN, Jim. Good job.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), September 18, 1999.

Thanks there big guy. By the way, excellent presentation today at the Charlotte Preparedness Expo.

-- cb (Thank_You@Very.Much), September 18, 1999.

a man after me heart=tell,s it like it is.so did JESUS, HE [jesus] DIDN,T PUSSYFOOT AROUND.and JESUS didn,t hide from public.ALL human history will be summed up in,what they do with HIS WORD.

-- rite on jim. (dogs@zianet.com), September 18, 1999.

Thanks for the update Jim,

Theres a whole TBY2K category dedicated to discussing your leaks at...

Military/Pentagon Papers/Hot Topics (New) Threads

http:// www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-one-category.tcl?topic= TimeBomb%202000%20%28Y2000%29&category= Military%2fPentagon%20Papers%2fHot%20Topics%20%28New%29

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 18, 1999.

Thanks for everything, Jim!

-- YourSeattle (Chauffeur@nd.pizza.pal), September 18, 1999.

Never confuse incompetence with conspiracy. There is far more of the fomer than of the latter.

-- (beenthere@done.that), September 18, 1999.

Not to beat a dead horse (or eat a dead horse) but this notion that this is a worst case scenario document seems proposterous given than the words "probable" and "possible" don't seem that interchangeable. Also, the notion that the "3"s are ascribed to "lack of information" seems a little nuts when in the very same city/category they often had enough information to give a "2" (e.g., probable partial failure = 3, probably total failure = 2). Sheesh.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), September 18, 1999.

Jim Lord:

Admitting my ignorance, I had never heard of you until Gary North had posted a link to your .to/ site.

But now I'm glad to know you're spreading the alarm. Thanks.

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), September 18, 1999.

Jim Lord,

I have read your book and your essays on Westergaard since early last year. Excellent and thorough!

Thank you for sticking your neck out and shining your light on the future.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), September 18, 1999.

Mr. Lord, thank you for all your hard work. Although the document took over 45 minutes to download at 56k, and printing it was very slow, it was worth every second!

To see it in my hands blows my mind. The fact that they titled the colums "Likelihood of Failure" and not "Worse Case Scenario" and that it was done in June, before all the spin and smoke on it, tells me of its dire implications.

Hard facts like these (the physical report itself, not so much the content) is what jars me back to the pessimistic reality of Y2K.

Mr. Lord, I am in awe at your courage.

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 21, 1999.