From a December 9th interview:

Sanders: How does y2k look to you with three weeks to go?

Jim Lord: You have to look at two different aspects of it, the technical and the economic. By "technical" I mean computer failures that affect infrastructure. Even though there is a tremendous concerted effort to convince us that the electrical grid is not in any danger, I continue to get solid information from the insiders that there is a good deal more risk there than the government is telling us aboutThe Navy utility survey, a major story that broke here a few months back, is a good example of that. I absolutely proved that they were lying to us about y2k with that story. Without question they have information about the utilities and about the rest of the infrastructure that they are not telling us. That's one aspect.

Another story that broke just recently arose from the two days I spent with the C.E.O. of one of the world's largest Y2K remediation companies. This gentleman and his company have done Y2K embedded systems remediation for major utilities, water systems, and electric systems all over the world, not just in the U.S.

This is what I would consider one of the two or three or four most technically qualified embedded systems experts in the world. He tells me that if we escape Y2K by losing only 40-60% of the power in the U.S. for two to three weeks, he would consider that a home run.

Sanders: And that's the best case scenario?

Lord: Yes, the best case. For two to three weeks half the power in the country falls out. I spent two days with this gentleman, and he is an honorable man. He is a paragon of virtue.

Sanders: Anybody who has studied Y2K soon concludes that if the grid stays up, we're all right, but if the grid goes down, there is no telling what will happen.

Lord: Combining his revelation with my judgment does not guarantee there will be massive computer problems. His is only one person's opinion, but a person of the highest character, the highest integrity and unmatched technical credentials. From that kind of information from insiders I conclude that we ought to be concerned about a great deal more than the government and the big trade associations are telling us about.

I would love not to be concerned. If you can discount Y2K electricity problems, then you start to believe that we could probably handle Y2K. On the other hand, the kind of electrical problems that this gentleman outlines foretell a real catastrophe.

Sanders: Two to three weeks of a 40-60% outage would be an unrelieved disaster. Those kind of outages in Minneapolis, Detroit

Lord: .New York City

Sanders: Not to mention Montreal, Toronto, and so on, would mean millions of deaths.

Lord: We couldn't respond to that like we responded to major ice storms in the northeast in the past three or four years. With that happening over such a widespread area, we could not marshal resources from outside. There would be too much of it to handle.

The above was taken from Sanders newletter, "The Moneychanger". If you're good I'll take the time to type what Lord and Sanders said about the banks.

It's not too late to buy a kerosene heater, water, and food. Lord and Sanders are cool heads. Disbelieve this at your own risk.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), December 22, 1999

Answers

Paula Gordon's been saying this for a while now. In 9 days we'll know.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), December 22, 1999.

For "newbies" reading this post, breathe deeply.

No disrespect intended, BB, but this is old news for many on this forum. It would be extremely helpful if you would post a link to professional/biographical information for "Sanders."

"Old-timers" on this forum already have most of Jim Lord's biographical data. We have also followed "Mr. CEO." To date, he remains not only anonymous, but we have never even heard his voice--as was once promised--anonymously in a radio interview. Many wish it were not so.

These very same "Oldtimers" will remember my quote from several months ago, regarding the proper evaluation of data based upon the credentials of the "source," or in this case, "sources."

More info please.

:)

FM

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), December 22, 1999.

As for the Navy report, it turned out that the Navy created a spreadsheet in which power was assumed unreliable as the default, and in most cases nobody got around to asking, so the defaults were never updated. Certainly even the Navy claims to have done no physical inspection/oversight of any power generation or distribution facilities.

But nonetheless, I heat with wood and I have lots of oil lamps and hundreds of gallons of drinking water (and endless nondrinking water -- it rains a lot here). Best to do whatever you can to minimize the inconvenience of an extended power outage, and only *then* can you afford to be skeptical where skepticism seems amply justified.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 22, 1999.

FM, I have seen the CEO mentioned before but never given the kind of affirmation and confirmation by someone like Jim Lord. I thought his validation would carry some weight as to the validity of the report.

As for Franklin Sanders. Franklin is a solid citizen out of the Jim Lord mold. Here is his website: Link

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), December 22, 1999.

I appreciate the prompt follow up, BB.

It is important to recognize, however, that those whose primary websites/credentials, etc., involve merchandising, are automatically suspect with regard to the dissemination of opinions on how this whole thing will shake out. Rightly or wrongly, that's the way it is.

In particular, information dissemination from those who are engaged in the sale of precious metals has been a contentious issue on this and other Y2k forums during the past few months.

Regardless, I really appreciate the fact that you "dug" for the link.

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), December 22, 1999.

One other thing:

Flint,

I respect your opinions on many things, as I do Ken Decker's.

Over time, I've followed both of you. Depending on the day or the subject matter, both of you have a seemingly uncanny ability to come across as "Pollies" or "Doomers."

I know however, that these are relative terms ONLY in the arena of long-standing "Y2k Debating Societies."

Those who are new to this forum may not realize that many of the so-called "Pollies" advocate preparedness for any type of emergency on a regular basis.

Take for example, the American Red Cross guidelines--which were issued 53 weeks ago. You will find very few "Pollies"--certainly not Flint--in opposition to those.

I can't vouch for Decker, but I was certainly surprised by the recent "Decker versus cpr" thread. LOL!

Blessings.

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), December 22, 1999.

Come on people, Nobody's making money on y2k hype anymore. Even the gov't is trying to back-track in it's own subtle way by introducing the terrorist theories. The grid and everything else is suspect. If it stays up (along with the nukes) it will be a miracle, oil and water are still top on my concern list. The 90's are history. The challenge for this group and others will be how do we function the next 6 months, do we turn into animals or do we do determine to work together for the common good. shockwave

-- shockwave (vission441@aol.com), December 22, 1999.

FM:

I think the problem lies more with the labels than the people. My feeling is that people here have accurately identified the types and ranges of date bugs, somewhat overestimated how common they are, and vastly exaggerated their net impact and intractability.

I've predicted everyone will claim they were right because a middle- ground outcome provides so much support for *any* position. Just point to everything that goes wrong and you can convince yourself things are Very Bad, or point to everything that did NOT go wrong, and you can convince yourself things aren't so bad after all.

I sincerely hope I've overinsured against y2k.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 22, 1999.

FM,

Franklin Sanders, his business, and His words are not at issue here. He only conducted the interview. At issue are words of Jim Lord. As you mentioned in your first post, most 'forum regulars' know him and either believe him or don't. HE IS the credential and source of the information I posted.

He said he spent TWO WHOLE DAYS with this CEO. He vouched for his integrity, and impeccable technology expertise. One either accepts Lord's words or not.

And may I add, be careful in rejecting the word of the Lord. :-)

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), December 22, 1999.

Indeed, you most capable of turning a phrase BB, i.e.,

"And may I add, be careful in rejecting the word of the Lord. :-)"

True--the interviewee is ultimately more important than the interviewer--but one must wonder why mainstream media did not pick up on the "Mr. CEO" story. Of course, if--in a month or so--it turns out that "Mr. CEO" and Lord, by default, are correct you can bet THAT will make headlines somewhere.

In the meantime, I remain somewhat emoticon challenged.

I've mastered :), yet I remain ignorant regarding :-)

Help?

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), December 22, 1999.

Jim Lord pushed the meter quite high during his "Pentagon Papers" farce. Then people discovered the truth and the needle slowly started to drop. Now even his "Mr CEO" can't help him achieve anything more than a 9.5 reading. He's gonna have to do a lot better than rehashing his old material if he wants to get back to his glory days.

-- CD (not@here.com), December 22, 1999.

Flint mentioned

"""Best to do whatever you can to minimize the inconvenience of an extended power outage, and only *then* can you afford to be skeptical where skepticism seems amply justified."""

Flint that is one of the smartest things you said.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 22, 1999.

FM, You are kidding right? Try the hyphen for the nose or you can do this. :^)

CD, does that meter keep running when nobody is reading the thread?

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), December 22, 1999.

CD, does that meter keep running when nobody is reading the thread?

Yes, it does BB. You see, it's also wired into the Art Bell and Jeff Rense radio programs by night, and the Y2knewswire.com and worldnetdaily.com sites by day.

-- CD (not@here.com), December 22, 1999.

Now, CD and BB, you are both approaching peak volume on the "challenge-o-meter." This, of course is not necessary, although I have to tell you CD, I love the graphic.

BB, I am most emphatically NOT kidding when I tell you I do NOT understand the difference between a

:)

and a

:-)

or even a

:^)

At the end of the day, do they not all equate a "smile?"

Would you please enlighten me on the subtleties involved in using these emoticons, if significant ones exist? Thanks.

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), December 22, 1999.

CD, Thanks for your explanation. I was sure it was hooked into the North site as well. hmmmm Btw, thanks for your contribution to the thread, it was truly enlightening.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), December 22, 1999.

Btw, thanks for your contribution to the thread, it was truly enlightening.

My apologies if you found it disruptive BB. I felt the "hype-o-meter" would be a very useful tool during any discussion involving Jim Lord's comments. My advice is; don't use it if you don't need it.

-- CD (not@here.com), December 22, 1999.

Jim Lord is a man of great integrity. If he speaks so highly of Mr. CEO, I accept that fully. Right that this is not news for us as many of us expect the grid to be in, at least, sporadic trouble.

God bless all.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), December 22, 1999.

Jim Lord is an old salt (U.S.Navy). One of the first things you learn is that the sea can not be bluffed, Bu11sh*ted, or conned. Y2K is as real as the Pacific Ocean. Depending on where and who you are, you may experience a gentle swell or a Typhoon.

I will always listen when Jim Lord speaks. The Navy report defaulting to worse case is standard military logic. You always want to prepare for the worst case. How would you like to build a gun that could shoot through 3" armor plate and then discover that the enemy had ships with 6" armor?

-- woody (woody11420@aol.com), December 22, 1999.

Thanks, BB, for taking the time to type this all out! It's a very sobering thought!

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), December 23, 1999.

The idea put forth by Flint that the Navy defaulted to a worst case scenario when it had insufficient data is TOTALLY bogus. The people reading this thread let Flint pull the wool over their eyes again. Go back and research what Jim Loard and others had to say on this subject AND THE EVIDENCE THEY OFFER TO BACK UP THEIR STATEMENT. Nothing like doing your homework before trying to reach a logical conclusion.

But let me wax philosophical: If it weren't for Flint and one or two others, who would keep us one our toes?

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), December 23, 1999.

Dr. Roger:

If the Navy actually verified their numbers, then I stand corrected. I don't recall reading that the Navy did any physical inspections, I recall reading that pending some kind of check, the default was "unknown" and not "reliable". I also recall reading that the spreadsheet in question was not a high priority Navy action item. In short, that it didn't constitute solid documentation.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 23, 1999.

Dr. Altman,

Thanks for your heads-up!

FM,

You stated (with a straight face, I'm assuming), "but one must wonder why mainstream media did not pick up on the "Mr. CEO" story."

Surely you jest. 8^{

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 23, 1999.

C.D. and what sort education/training/experience do you have that you can so easily dis Mr. Lord?

;-)

-- (karlacalif@aol.com), December 23, 1999.

What else did Jim Lord learn during the two days he spent with the CEO? Were other industries discussed?

-- Danny (dcox@ix.netcom.com), December 23, 1999.

Flint:

The simple fact is that the worst case rating was NOT based on a "no-knowledge" default. Shifting gears and demanding NOW that nothing short of a physical inspection would convince you that these utilities are in trouble may sidetrack some readers, but I'm not buying.

Your constant harping on the lack of accurate data has always turned the logic of preparing (as best one can) on its head. It's precisely BECAUSE there is no reliable data to ACCURATELY estimate the seriousness of this WORLDWIDE SYSTEMIC problem that demands we reduce personal risk. To do less is to fall into the trap of confusing the stakes with the odds. IMHO BOTH are sky high anyway.

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), December 25, 1999.

Dr. Roger:

I didn't "demand" any physical inspection. What I'm trying to point out here is that the Navy did no verification. You appear to reject NERC's optimistic reports on the basis that there is no verification, yet accept the Navy's even though there is *also* no verification, and by all indications *substantially* less hard information. The key difference between what is considered "adequate" information seems to consist solely of what you prefer to believe.

In any case, I've always recommended preparations and never spoken against them. I'm surprised that even at this late date you cling so single-mindedly to the one document (out of a GREAT many) that supports your expectations, and speak out against those who find this approach of questionable validity. Prepare all you want, but why bend your efforts tying to make the unlikely appear a foregone conclusion?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 25, 1999.

Flint:

By all accounts NERC did very limited end to end testing (about 1.2%) of the systems under its purvue, so I choose not to believe the optimistic reporting of an electrical trade association that has a vested interest in providing positive spin. OTOH, the Navy is quite interested in protecting their assets so I would tend to be much more partial to their risk appraisal. That information plus a great deal more of supporting evidence (for example, chemical, oil, gas, water and sewage Y2k readiness, or lack thereof) lead me to believe that the risks of significant even catastrophic failure are quite high.

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), December 25, 1999.

Dr. Roger:

In a week or two, we should have a much clearer picture as to which assessment proves the more accurate. And as always, I expect something somewhere between the two. But I'll let reality be the arbiter here, since I don't have much choice.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 25, 1999.

And as always, I expect something somewhere between the two.

Why "as always"...

Don't you have a brain man?

This is your posture on every subject, and if you are correct you fool then we go INFOMAGIC.

Numbskull.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 25, 1999.