The Mis-Leaders:Part II HAIL,HAIL, The Gang's All Here : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

The Mis-Leaders: HAIL,HAIL, The Gang's All Here

From: Roleigh Martin  <Roleigh.Martin-1@t...>
Date: Fri Aug 20, 1999 11:21am
Subject: HTML: Jim Lord's Pentagon Y2K Papers (URLs/Yourdon/Davis/Lord Email/Wash.Post)

The big news today is of course Jim Lord's new web site which hosts the Pentagon Y2K Papers.   Below is links to a bunch of threads on the topic, a Washington Post Article on it, Ed Yourdon's comments, two emails from Jim Lord to me on the topic, as well as commentary by Steve Davis which reportedly includes comments by John Koskinen (I believe Steve is being straight on what he's hearing from Koskinen).

Decide for yourself.   I'm anxious to see of Lord posts the unaltered full copy of the August update of the Navy report and if people (perhaps journalists) through FOIA requests (see get similar reports from the Army or Air Force.

The three URLs that get you to Jim Lord's Pentagon Y2K Papers Web Site

Very important material.   Reportedly, according to Michael Hyatt who has talked

Navy Predicts Widespread Y2K Failure  
By Ted Bridis Associated Press Writer Thursday, August 19, 1999; 7:27 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Navy report predicts ``probable'' or ``likely''   failures in electrical and water systems for many cities because of   the Year 2000 technology problem -- an assessment more dire than any   other made by the government.

President Clinton's top Y2K adviser, John Koskinen, called the Navy's   conclusions overly cautious, saying they assumed that major utilities   would fail unless proved otherwise.

The most recent version of the study, updated less than two weeks ago,   predicted ``probable'' or ``likely'' partial failures in electric   utilities that serve nearly 60 of roughly 400 Navy and Marine Corps   facilities.

The study predicted ``likely'' partial electrical failures, for   example, at facilities in Orlando, Fla.; Gulfport, Miss.; Fort   Lauderdale, Fla.; and nine other small- to mid-size cities.

It also predicted ``probable'' partial water system failures in   Dallas; Nashville, Tenn.; Houston; Baton Rouge, La.; Montgomery, Ala;   Tulsa, Okla.; and 59 other cities.

The study forecast likely partial natural gas failures -- in the   middle of winter -- in Albany, N.Y.; Fort Worth, Texas; Pensacola,   Fla.; Charleston, S.C.; Columbus, Ohio; and Nashville.

The military report contrasts sharply with predictions from the White   House, which weeks ago said in a report that national electrical   failures are ``highly unlikely.'' The White House report also said   disruptions in water service from the date rollover are ``increasingly   unlikely.''

Koskinen, who vouched for the authenticity of the Navy report, noted   that all its worst-case predictions for failures were marked as   ``interim'' or ``partial'' assessments.

``It's not nearly as interesting as the world coming to an end,'' said   Koskinen. ``The way they worked was, until you have information for   contingency planning purposes, you ought to assume there was a   problem.''

The Year 2000 problem occurs because some computer programs,   especially older ones, might fail when the date changes to 2000.   Because the programs were written to recognize only the last two   digits of a year, such programs could read the digits ``00'' as 1900   instead of 2000, potentially causing problems with financial   transactions, airline schedules and electrical grids.

The Navy report was first summarized on an Internet site run by Jim   Lord, a Y2K author, who said he obtained it ``from a confidential   source of the highest reliability and integrity.''

``The military has to work from the worst case, but so do we,'' Lord   told The Associated Press on Thursday. ``It's reprehensible for them   to know this and keep it from us.''

Koskinen said the Navy wasn't withholding information from anyone,   noting that the continually updated report was available until   recently on a Web site maintained by the Defense Department.

``The last people in the world the department is going to keep   information from is their own people,'' Koskinen said. ``In fact, the   whole purpose of the exercise is to make sure they can provide   appropriate information to servicemen on their bases and their   families.

The report was pulled off the Web site two weeks, Koskinen said.   Neither he nor Defense Department officials offered any reason why.

) Copyright 1999 The Associated Press

>From: JimLordY2K@a...
>Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:16:19 EDT
>Subject: Urgent update

Hi Roleigh,

Urgent update for you.

An AP reporter (Ted Bridis) heard me on the radio this morning, got a copy of   my report and took it straight to Koskinen who verified its authenticity.   The reporter was given a copy of the latest version of the report dated Aug  
4th.   I have not had time to review.

Key point.   The report has been validated by the government.

Now we will get to watch them spin it.


 >From: JimLordY2K@a...
 >Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:39:40 EDT
 >Subject: Re: [roleigh_y2k_lodge] Fw: [civicprep] Pentagon Papers of Y2k
 >To: rol@u...
 >X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 22
 >Hi all,
 >The report is limited to cities in which there are Navy or Marine Corps 
 >facilities.  I have requested via FOIA the reports from the Air force and 
 >Army.  I also did not include (but will do so soon) the cities that were 
 >evaluated as posing no problems with utilities.  there are about 300 of 

>From: "Robert Mangus" rmangus@h...
>Subject: Urgent: "The Pentagon Papers of Y2K" by Jim Lord, August 18, 1999
>Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 14:44:53 PDT
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed


* * * 19990819 Thursday

Subject: "The Pentagon Papers of Y2K" by Jim Lord, August 18, 1999

Dear Friends,

This is a rare Y2K item that is a must read.   Ignore it at the peril   of you, your family and your friends!

Jim Lord's words ( below ) express my sentiments better than I ( at   this moment ).   I had the honor of chatting with Jim for only an hour   while we were in Indiana in the fall of 1997.   Although sparse, I have   maintained e-mail contact with him on salient Y2K issues and   information.   He is affable, knowledgeable, honorable and forthright.

Essentially, U.S. military organizations are fully aware of the   anticipated scope and depth of the pending Y2K catastrophe.   They are   not or are unable to disclose their findings to the public.   However,   we are a fortunate people, in that our Armed Forces do not depend on   political and corporate spin-doctors in matters concerning due   diligence performing their U.S. Constitutional missions.

The information in "The Pentagon Papers of Y2K" speaks to _only_   cities in close proximity to U.S. Navy and Marine bases throughout the   world.   Based on my 33+ years of experience in the IT field--the last  
2 years on Y2K projects--it is my contention that this article is essentially a global snapshot of what we should anticipate in the wake  
of Y2K-related failures.

I have included ( below ) the first portion of Jim's report and   biographical information he included at the end of the report.   You   may also visit his web site < > to download the   entire report in Word document format.

Keep in mind that Jim is possibly putting his Naval Officer   Commission, as well as his son's Navy career, on the line by   publishing this report.   ( A Y2K "Cassandra" gets no respect! )

I wish to personally thank Jim Lord for his relentless and honorable   efforts disseminating Y2K information to the general public.


Please disseminate this report as far and wide as possible!

Regards,   Bob Mangus

* * *

< >

The Pentagon Papers of Y2K

Cities At Risk From The Year 2000 Computer Crisis

By Jim Lord

Jim Lord can be contacted at: JimLordY2K@a...

Expanded information is available at

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 affected.   Here's what the Navy expects:

7 Dallas-no water.

7 Washington DC and Philadelphia-no gas

7 Baltimore, Houston, New York and Miami--no water or sewer.

7 Atlanta-no water or gas

7 San Antonio-no water or electricity.

7 Fort Worth and New Orleans-no water, gas or sewer services.

And the Navy Department is saying nothing.

Cities at Risk

The information presented below is based on a US Navy/Marine Corps   survey dated June 1999.   The survey was conducted to determine the   risk of utility failures at military facilities worldwide.   Only   United States information is shown


About the Author

Jim Lord is the author of, "A Survival Guide for the Year 2000   Problem: Consumer Solutions for the Worst Technical Blunder in   History" a practical, 270 page guide to preparation for the Year 2000   Computer Crisis.   He has written nearly ninety articles on Y2K.   He is   also the co-editor with James Talmage Stevens of the "Journal of   Per-sonal Freedom," a newsletter which provides practical guidance in   the restoration of Liberty through preparedness and self-reliance.

Mr. Lord has advised Congressional staffers, The Congressional   Research Service, the Department of Defense, the Center for Security   Policy, and the US Taxpayer's Alliance, and is a Y2K Research   Associate at George Washington University.   He has appeared on more   than 200 radio talk shows as well as Fox News, ABC NightLine, the   Discovery Channel, C-Span and PAX TV.

He appeared on the same speaking agenda with Nobel prizewinner Milton   Friedman and Lady Margaret Thatcher at the Blanchard Investor   Conference in New Orleans.   He has debated Y2K with Harry Browne,   recent Libertarian Party presidential candidate and Gary North, a   prominent Y2K expert and writer.  

He has been a featured speaker at the World Future Society, the   Conservative Caucus, many investor conferences, numerous Y2K community   prepared-ness seminars, and at the Eris Society in Aspen, Colorado.

Mr. Lord is a retired Naval Officer with 24 years active service who   came up through the enlisted ranks.   His career was spent in the   electronics field, including a tour as the Electronics Maintenance   Officer on an aircraft carrier.   At age 33, he earned a degree in   Business, graduating with honors from the Naval Postgraduate School in   Monterey, California.   Following his military career, Mr. Lord was   in-volved in shipbuilding, communication systems design, satellite   systems, software engineering, training and marketing.   This   experience included nine years in the software industry.  

He also taught business courses at the college level for several   years.


Koskinen's "Take" On Jim Lord's Pentagon Papers (Steve Davis--Coalition 2000)) : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Some Thread discussions...  
The Pentagon Papers of Y2k 001GWN   You Can't handle The Truth 001GXQ   Taking up Lord's challenge 001Gbo   Well if Jim Lord is to be believed, this should just about do it for ths polys 001GZ1

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

See also...

JIM LORD WILL BE ON Y2KNEWS RADIO TO DISCUSS THE PENTAGON PAPERS! 001Gbh   Anyone got .mil access? Please try to get into this site 001GeH

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


And yet "another" thread...

Jim Lord: Why I am watching intently but with skepticism 001Ggw

And... MORE threads...  
Lord's Y2K Pentagon Papers confirmed in Washington Post; Koskinen singing a different tune 001Gla   Is anyone familiar with the Navy website Kosky says existed? 001Gmi

NEW URL FOR JIM LORD 001GmM   I can no longer access Jim Lord's site 001GmS   Drudge picks up link to Lord story 001Gnb   Diane J. Squire - C4I - Jim Lord ??? 001Gi5

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

Ed Yourdon on the Pentagon Y2K Papers:

Like most of the people on this forum (and several other forums), I've   read all of the postings about Jim Lord's "Pentagon Papers" with great   interest and deep concern. A number of excellent points have already   been made on this thread; here are a few of my own observations:

1. Credibility of the players: I've met Lord and Koskinen in person, and I know Steve Davis from numerous email exchanges over the past  
couple of years. I respect the intelligence, sincerity, and integrity   of all them; whether they turn out to be right or wrong, I think they   all truly believe what they're saying to us -- which is in stark   contrast to what I see in the day-to-day business world, where the   "rules" of competitive behavior rarely require anything more than a   surface-level pretense of sincerity. Nevertheless, the "bottom line"   for me is that I would only trust the safety of my family to someone   that I've known long enough to have gone through one or more   life-and-death crises, in order to have a true sense of how they react   under such circumstances. In a few rare cases, that might happen in a   new friendship; but in most cases, it only happens after I've known   someone 5, 10, or 15 years. For better or worse, I have to say that I   don't know Lord, Koskinen, Davis, or many of the other Y2K "notables"   well enough to warrant quite that level of trust, which means that I   always have to remind myself to take everything they say with a small   grain of salt. For many people, discussions like this are great for   cocktail parties, but have no relevance in the "real" world; for   people who really do think Y2K could pose life-and-death threats, it   goes beyond idle cocktail chitter-chatter. Thus, I think one of the   questions some of us have to ask ourselves after reading Lord's   material, or Koskinen's rebuttal, or any of the related commentaries,   is: sounds good, but would I entrust the safety of my spouse and my   kids to this person, based on this information?

2. Authenticity of the Navy document: when I first read Jim's material, I was worried about this. Now I'm not -- it appears that Mr.  
Koskinen has publicly acknowledged that the original document did   exist, and was published on a quasi-public web site at some relatively   recent point in time.

3. Accuracy and timeliness of the Navy document, as compared to other quasi-official statements about Y2K readiness: bottom line is that  
nobody knows. Unless and until a more recent document appears from the   same naval group, I don't see how we can reject this one as anything   less than the "best guess" of at least one group within the Navy. It   does seem to contradict the statement issued by Navy brass to their   own personnel, but I don't think that necessarily proves that either   document is right or wrong.

4. Should it have been released publicly? Obviously, Lord feels the answer is "yes," and Koskinen implies that the answer is "no." I was  
intrigued to see that Steve Davis seems to have sided with Koskinen on   this one. My reaction on this one is entirely selfish, personal, and   emotional: if the government is suggesting that the "public" is not   entitled to know certain preliminary drafts of the Y2K situation, then   I have to assume that I'm going to be included as part of that   amorphous "public." It's all very interesting argue, in an abstract   and academic sense, about whether John Q. Public is smart enough,   mature enough, responsible enough, and experienced enough to be able   to handle scary information. But what about you? What about me? And   what are the credentials of those who apparently feel they have the   God-given right to make such decisions? As noted above, I respect the   intelligence, sincerity, and integrity of Lord, Koskinen, and Davis --   but I don't think they're sufficiently smarter, wiser, and purer than   me to decide how what information I should be allowed to see, and what   I shouldn't be allowed to see. I understand the notion that there may   be people roaming the streets with an IQ of 76 who might do harm to   themselves if provided access to scary information about Y2K; and in   theory, I understand the concern that if the general public was given   raw, unadulterated access to Y2K information, they might stampede and   head for the banks to withdraw their money. These are serious issues,   and I enjoy having a serious intellectual discussion about them ...   but when I realize that, by virtue of not being a member of the   political elite, I would end up being thrown into the same heap as the   IQ-76 folks and the bank-run lemmings, I get very nervous about the   possibility that my life is being manipulated. (For whatever it's   worth, I would be just as nervous if someone told me that I would be   allowed to be a member of the political elite if I would just keep my   mouth shut; I don't like the idea of pulling the strings that control   another person's life either).

5. Why do we have to "prove" anything about Lord's document anyway? The American system of justice assume that someone (including an  
individual, corporation, or any other entity) is innocent until proven   guilty; even OJ got the benefit of that assumption. On that basis, the   private-sector organizations and the government agencies are   "innocent" of Y2K bugs until proven guilty; and on that basis, we   would have to "prove" that the allegations in Lord's document were   accurate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, before we did anything about   them. But I think that Y2K is a classic case of safety-critical   "auditing" in which one reverses the assumption: we should assume that   computer systems, embedded systems, and the organizations that depend   upon those systems, to be guilty until proven innocent. Organizations   like FAA give lip service to this concept when they tell us that they   would never compromise the public's safety with their air-traffic   control systems ... but unless every FAA employee put every member of   his/her immediate family on a New Year's Eve flight (not just Jane   Garvey, John Koskinen, and the born-again optimist Peter de Jager),   I'm not sure I trust their sincerity. As a practical matter, I don't   think we're going to see any serious Y2K laws or regulations based on   this principle -- but it does govern a lot of my thinking. Thus, for   me the burden of proof is not on Jim Lord and his supporters to prove   that their document is "right," but rather on the Y2K optimists to   prove it's wrong. The notion that Mr. Koskinen's "Community   Conversations" is providing such proof is laughable: these events have   involved nothing more than public officials in some two dozen cities   lecturing to an audience of a couple hundred people about why it's a   bad idea for them to take their money out of the bank.


-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@y...), August 19, 1999.


-- (i like @ this. better), September 16, 2000.

-- Doomzies-Be-Them (, September 16, 2000


-- (i@love.shapes), September 16, 2000.

Who is more off, cpr or his critics? I think cpr is in control, and his critics are not. He is toying with them and enjoying it. They on the other hand can not control themselves, compulsively insulting him everytime they log on to the internet.

I bet if cpr decided to make several t-shirts with slogans such as "CREEP HATER", "STOP CEEPER", and "CPR IS INSANE" at about $3.50 an item, he could sell it to these poor people at $35.00 bucks a shirt.

I am willing to bet that several people here would each buy at least 10 shirts to wear for themselves and to give as gifts.

-- Butt Nugget (, September 16, 2000.

Oh yeah, you're right Nug. I can't wait to buy a t-shirt from the sleaziest, most annoying, shit-for-brains, blowhard salesman on the entire internet.... NOT!!! Sounds like you are as deluded as he is.

If I ever meet him in person though, I'd love to tie him down and take a huge crap in his mouth. He can pay ME $35 for it.

-- (bubba@big.butt), September 16, 2000.


Who is more off, cpr or his critics? I think cpr is in control, and his critics are not. He is toying with them and enjoying it. They on the other hand can not control themselves, compulsively insulting him everytime they log on to the internet.

I bet if cpr decided to make several t-shirts with slogans such as "CREEP HATER", "STOP CEEPER", and "CPR IS INSANE" at about $3.50 an item, he could sell it to these poor people at $35.00 bucks a shirt.

I am willing to bet that several people here would each buy at least 10 shirts to wear for themselves and to give as gifts.

-- Butt Nugget (, September 16, 2000.

Score Ten for BUTT. Unfortunately there was a serious purpose to my fun and that of ANDY RAY and others. The other side of the fun was "MORAL ANGER". Other de-bunkers said it and no one listened. Few remember that NONE of the de-bunkers and Anti-Doomzies MADE A DIME OF Y2k or even tried to (unless they were working on the problem).

WE DID IT BECAUSE MOST OF US CAN RECALL THE HISTORY OF PRE-1932 Germany. It was a "crisis" that created that Horror Show.




North swore I would never keep it up against him. That was 1997. I sent him a copy of Jonathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" (1745).

He got the message because that is his "specialty" in history, Puritan New England. He was ready for that or for just HOW MUCH I KNEW ABOUT ***TRAITORS*** AND ***SEDITIONISTS*** like him.

-- cpr (, September 16, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ