www.y2knew.org, from 12:00 - 1:00 CST.

Someone PLEASE listen and post!

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), August 19, 1999

Answers

To the top...

-- Rolandq (nottelling@nowhere.com), August 19, 1999.

Are you sure that's the right URL? I can't access it.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 19, 1999.

Ah, here's the correct one: Crunch this

Too bad I don't have streaming audio.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 19, 1999.

www.y2knews.org

sorry

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), August 19, 1999.

http://www.y2knews.org/

An "s" was missing in "news"

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 19, 1999.

O.K., some raw reporters notes on Jim Lord Y2kNewswire interview in progress.

8/19/99

O.K.

Tim Wilson: host

Wilson says theres breaking news. Does DOD know something about Y2k that you dont? Jim Lord says yes.

June 1999 report. Master Utility list.

Lord says results are horrifying.

(Wilson synopsizes report)

Says Lord indicates report is not stamped as classified.

(Here I lost real audio connection. I reconnected then:)

Lord describes his background. Mentions he spent nearly 40 years in government.

(Commercial break)

More to come, time permitting.

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Please keep it coming!

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 19, 1999.

I couldn't get Real Player to work for me. I don't think the ideas are so shoicking, considering what we all have discussed in this forum, but knowing that the Navy knows specifics is interesting, to say the least. I mean, we all have been prepping for electricity, sewer, and water down. (Still, I yearn to flush.)

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWAyne@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Lord says report reveals far different picture than what weve been told. Repeats information from report. Refers to 125 cities. Says document came from a confidential source he considers to have highest integrity and proper access to documents.

Hes convinced of validity of documents but admits he does not have verification.

Yesterday, 8/20/99 mailed FOI requests to Navy, Air Force, one other military branch. Wants studies, supporting documents and subsequent reports. Says well see how system works.

Host talks about Boston and Dallas as recently being reported Y2k Compliant.

Lord admits there are inconsistencies. Lord says there are two stories. First is actual content, i.e., list of cities, expected failures. Second, he says hes ashamed of the Navy, assuming this is true.

Says withholding of info is shameful.

Host: Can you give us any info about the source of the document? (Host rambles)

Lord says he did not put up the names of the military facilities near the towns because it would be an incredible job. But he recognized facilities (because of military background)and utilities. He will put utility names up very soon. Says there is more information than whats contained in todays posted report. That information, says Lord, gives validity to the report.

Host talks about disconnect between happy face messages and apparent infrastructure problems.

Lord says 1/5 of these cities are exposed to electricity problems, 2/3 exposed to water and sewer failures. Lord says water and sewers are problematic.

Discussion goes on to the importance of water and sewer. Lord says we need heat and light in our homes and we can find substitutes if power fails. But water is worrisome because unlike electricity, its difficult to find substitutes. He says sewer is one of the biggest threats.

Lord says raising public awareness is primary value of document. Public needs to ask questions. For example, why does the Navy believe Dallas will be without water? He says the public needs to get the Navy involved in a public fight. They need to put the Navy on the spot. They need to ask Why do you believe this? He says there needs to be confrontations. There is no time. Thats why Lord says he went public. Theres no time for conversations. Its time for the hard questions to be answered.

Discussion veers again toward reasons why the report appears valid. Specific discussions of cities. Specific information. Thats a lot of specifics.

Lord says population figures were included as part of his own research.

(Commercial break)

(Lost my connection again. Dang. Reconnected and Buffering.)

Show returns.

Be back with more time permitting.

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Thanks FM,

My Real Player couldn't download, did the upgrade and it still wouldn't do it so....... thanks again for the reporting! :)

-- Kristi (securxsys@cs.com), August 19, 1999.

Show returns.

Lord says he wont put original document on Website because its a xerox of a xerox, etc. He has great confidence this report is accurate. Says its possible it has not gone up the chain of command. Thats why hes asked for reports.

Host says he thinks Koskinen is aware of that report. Refers back to the APEC (sp)quotes Koskinen made overseas with regard to numerous problems in U.S. (Somebody needs to find the quote. I cant remember when it was made)

Lord talks about some small town, for example, near a military facility. He added in in population of the small town, but it could be that the utility provider serves many more than the population of that town. Lord says he anticipates the numbers of people potentially affected could rise.

(Commercial break--I gotta tell you I do not like these commercials. They're badly produced and smell like snake oil. Just my opinion. No flames please.)

More to come if time permits.

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Thanks for the post FM

-- Diane (DiR9290343@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

FM,

Thank you! I can't get Real Player to work without crashing my whole system!

Maybe this would be a story idea for "Researcher" to pitch to their employer. This may be more explosive than Watergate.

Mike

==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

You're doing a great job FM.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 19, 1999.

"Yesterday, 8/20/99 mailed FOI requests to Navy, Air Force". I thought today was the 19th.

-- Tim Jacob (tjacob@nb.aibn.com), August 19, 1999.

Hey! How about a "thanks" to good old Roland for pointing the broadcast out?? :-)

Seriously, FM, the "audio impaired" among us appreciate your efforts!

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), August 19, 1999.

(Ack. Ack. Ack! HORRIBLE commercials! No flames please. JMHO)

Show resumes.

Host re-introduces Lord. Gives Web site address, etc. Talks about congested server. Says download of this program will be available for two days at audiocasting.com

Host wants email from anybody else whos seen reports like these.

(Lost connection again. Dang!)

Reconnected.

Caller has question: You saw what happened with Y2k news and the media at the end of March. Claims media was told to shut up and they shut up. Does Lord think media will wake up.

Lord says media has been presented with so much information about Y2k, that theyve given such short shrift, Congressional reports, etc. Says major media isnt asking hard questions. Uses FAA as an example. Said Dana Lakeman (former FAA Y2k spokesman)gave a presentation in D.C. that Lord attended, described the process that FAA had undergone.

To test 152 mission critical computing systems, FAA took some recorded data and ran it through a simulator in a lab, used two planes in Denver, tested six out of 152 systems, and afterward FAA said the public can rest assured. Is that supposed to be a stringent test of the nations air traffic control system? Lord says when he presented him with that exact comment, he asked him where he got the number of six.

Lord replied he got it from the FAA press release. Lord was asked to leave his card and the FAA would get back to him. Well, a month later the FAA called, said there was updated info on its Website, and he checked, and it was the same material that was in the previous press release. Lord says the press is not asking hard questions.

Lord says hes not a conspiracy theory proponent, but says the press is basically rolling over and not asking hard questions.

Discussion veers toward NERC. Discussion about Y2k Ready versus Y2k Compliant.

Points out utilities are not using the term Y2k Compliant.

Discussion veers toward Koskinens message that there will be local and overseas problems. (Host rambling again.) Host brings up the idea that info is coming from trade groups and the info is self-reported.

Lord uses the FAA as an example again. Mentions that the independent auditor said they could have audited code had they been asked. Lord says the paper trail is whats being audited. IV&V isnt being done. Lord quotes Gartner as now saying 7 to 9 percent of errors will remain in code. Bottom line, Lord says fixing software is hard.

Host says hes a techie. (This guy is SO hard to follow..rambling again) Says Jim Seymour (with one of the tech magazines) is beginning to talk about personal preparations.

Says experts are coming out and saying this things not fixed.

Lord says he was originally a disbeliever. Then he started going to technical conferences and it made him a believer. Howard Reuben, Ed Yourdon, Leon Kappelman, etc. Talks about the traditional delays in software projects. He is mystified as to why people think it will be different this time.

Other host refers to government implying positive thinking will get it fixed.

(Commercial break)

(Im not proof-reading by the way. Hope this stuff is legible)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Awwww shucks Roland... didn't mean to overlook you!! Thanks!

-- Diane (Dir9290343@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

You're welcome... :-)

-- Roland (nottelling@nohwere.com), August 19, 1999.

Roland...buddy...EXCELLENT!!!

sorry, I got caught up in the moment...

Mike

==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

(Lost my connection again. Reconnected.)

Discussion of various messages coming from various organizations that panic might be the real problem.

Question for Lord: If people knew what you knew, would they panic?

Lord: "This is our country. These people work for us. If there is a problem, we have a right to know about it. These arrogant people believe we need to be managed. We dont need to be managed, we need to be served, and were not being served by withholding this kind of information." Lord goes on to say that if our banking, just in time, etc., processes are so fragile, we need to know about it now. We need to be preparing in a very serious way.

(Lost my connection--again!)

Ohhhhkay. 'Got it back. Now theyre playing the Dont worry be Happy Y2k song. Cute lyrics. Badly sung. Its over. Good. (Again, please no flames. Just my opinion here.)

Thats it.

I'm done. Whoo! (Fastest hour I've spent in a long time. An Indianapolis 500 hour. Wait! Was Indy on the list? [grin])

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Snip from FM notes:

"He will put utility names up very soon. Says there is more information than whats contained in todays posted report. That information, says Lord, gives validity to the report. "

These utilitiy names should spark some interest on behalf of many interested parties!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@tottacc.com), August 19, 1999.

Ray - I'm not sure this is what he meant, but utilities are named towards the end of the version of Lord's site on:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37bbfce303bd.htm

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

O.K., one final thingie to add to my above notes.

These notes were rapid fire. Tim Jacob, you are correct. Lord said he submitted the FOI requests yesterday (for the Navy and--it sounded like--other military organizations), which was August 18, 1999.

If anyone has the opportunity to listen to the entire program again (assuming it is available as they said it would be) I appreciate any clarifications/corrections you may have.

And yes. . .Researcher, where are you?

It would seem to me that today would be a very good day to set up a sleeping bag and tent at the Pentagon. Responses to FOI requests can be a bit slow, but good reporters knows when it's time to dig fast and hard. IMHO, this whole business should to be verified or tossed out quickly. We'll see.

(Curiouser and Curiouser, as the man once said. . .)

Cheers!

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Oh, and Roland. . .

Good find.

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

FM, I just posted this on another thread but in light of your last post I was wondering if I can get your thoughts as well as those of everyone else.

----------------

Gary North is obviously very aware of these documents.

Gary North will be a guest on Art Bell tonight.

Art Bell has an audience in excess of 8 million listeners.

Will this be a major focus of the interview tonight?

Will the push to have this information made public via the Freedom of Information Act be part of the shows agenda?

A lot of people who have no idea or access to this information may know about it tomorrow.

How long will it take for Drudge to pick it up?

Remember that prediction/assessment that awareness would pick up substantially by the middle of August? Kinda chilling, huh? Anyone remember the thread?

----------------

There may not be enough time to investigate this info before it becomes widely known... regardless of authentication, this could start a panic.

Mike ============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

FM

I know that was a lot of work. We really appreciate it.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 19, 1999.

Roland, FM, a heartfelt thanks!

Had to laugh at this:

To test 152 mission critical computing systems, FAA took some recorded data and ran it through a simulator in a lab, used two planes in Denver, tested six out of 152 systems, and afterward FAA said the public can rest assured. Is that supposed to be a stringent test of the nations air traffic control system? Lord says when he presented him with that exact comment, he asked him where he got the number of six.

Lord replied he got it from the FAA press release. Lord was asked to leave his card and the FAA would get back to him. Well, a month later the FAA called, said there was updated info on its Website, and he checked, and it was the same material that was in the previous press release.

Looks like Flint and Hoff are gonna be needing the Nytol tonight... :)

-- a (a@a.a), August 19, 1999.

I didn't know whether to start a new thread on this or not. Went to several sites and EVERYONE is talking about the papers. Hope Lord did not make a mistake.

My question.....Lord is ONLY referring to the cities that have naval bases. This report does not discuss all the other cities in the US and global. If the government knows that these problems are going to occur in the cities where the bases are located, wouldn't you think they would be trying to repair those locations first. And if they can't help themselves, how do we expect them (governemt) to help us. I would say this is a very frightening report.

I listened Jim Lord. Y2knewsradio said this was being broadcasst by net, shortwave and satellite(reg. radio?) around the world. I was knocked off numerous times. When I came back on the announcer was saying that there was so much traffic that some listeners should tune into another channel.

Will this be the turning point for the media? Can a report like this be overlooked? Or will all be brushed away just like all other information?

-- Linda A. (adahi@muhlon.com), August 19, 1999.

Here's my "transcript" of the passage: FAA's contractor, SAIC, determined the need to test 152 systems deemed mission-critical. They tested six of these by running recorded data through a labratory simulator, and did one 4-hour test using two planes. That's it. Lakeman (spokesman), when challenenged by Lord, said 'the press misquotes us all the time, I'm sure we tested more than 6.'

Things are heating up. Bully for you, Mr. Lord, and many thanks.

-- PH (ag3@interlogX.com), August 19, 1999.

You guys are so sweet. (All together now: Blush!)

You are most welcome. (Does this mean my family gets to stay at YOUR house? [grin])

Michael,

Where this goes from here is a wild card IMHO.

(Although I think it's fairly predictable what Milne will have to say about it. Got bread?)

Unless the Pope isn't Catholic, I'd bet indeedy this will be a major focus of Gary North's interview tonight.

Problem is guys, it's an Art Bell interview, not a "60 Minutes" interview. Bell has a lot of listeners, but. . .well, you know.

As for Drudge? Tomorrow? Same thing with WND.

But, and this is a BIG "if," what--if anything, are the major players in print media going to do with this? Or AP?

Validation is everything here. Does the document exist? Does it reveal what Lord says it does?

One thing's for certain: not since the infamous C4i posts of long ago have I seen anything this regionally specific.

We shall see.

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Thanks FM! (Another audio challenged poster).

See...

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

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

Can anyone post a link to the Art Bell radio show? Also what time is it on? I have to say I've never listened to Art Bell.

Thank you....Ronald and FM.

-- bulldog (sniffin@around.com), August 19, 1999.

bulldog,

Art Bells site...

http://www.artbell.com/

Coast to Coast AM

Weeks Nights at 10 PM Pacific / 1 AM Eastern for 5 Hours.

Radio Station Affilaite List...

http://www.artbell.com/ stations.html

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

Gary North will definately run with this tonight on Art Bell's show. Everyone is talking about it on different sites! I think I'll take a nap and stay up for this one tonight. I would not be surpsied if Art keeps Gary on longer than usual. If these Pentagon papers are for real, this is very significant. Just one thing bugs me about this whole thing, why would the Pentagon be so clumsy with these documents? Oh well, I guess if top secret nuclear secrets can get out of this country so easy, maybe these papers are just the norm.

-- staying tuned (stayingtuned@stayingtunnedd.com), August 19, 1999.

also- if you don't want to/can't stay up to listen to 5 hours of this tonite, try going here at your convenience:

http://ww2.broadcast.com/artbell/aug99.stm

(cut and paste it)

it's an archive of his shows. that way you can listen when you want.

Like maybe this weekend if they put up the archive....

-- Plonk! (realaddress@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Are the derboonkites havin' a hissy fit or what?

-- Glober (globe-ular@bigfoot.com), August 19, 1999.

Wow! So if this is just what the millions of Joe Sixpacks of America need to wake up...

Somebody with money call me.... we will advertise a good Y2K preparation book/video combo on national tv and radio... (nobody has REALLY done it yet!)

Tell your rich uncle!

Duane

1 (800) 2000 BUG

http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/8002000bug/page2.html

-- Duane Schwingel (duane@mytalk.com), August 19, 1999.

Hi guys.

I'm b-a-a-ck.

Just came back on line after doing a quick search of the newswires and found the following.

I expect this has been posted elsewhere, (and of course I will check) but I'm posting this to this thread because of my above comments regarding AP (Associated Press), after having posted notes on the Lord interview on Y2k Newswire today.

As you may know, AP picked up this story nationally at 7:27 p.m. this evening, as the following article shall illustrate.

What is the significance of AP running this story? It could be huge.

Then again, we shall see.

Bottom line: if you live in one of the locations mentioned in this report, make certain you read your local papers over the next week. Then, if you see a story in the local paper, watch your local ABC, CBS or NBC affiliate newscast for a follow up report. (Local broadcast news coverage often begins with the legwork produced by the local newspaper.)

'Just passin it on.

:)

And now: the AP Report. (If this isn't "fair use" I can't imagine what is)

Navy Predicts Widespread Y2K Failure

By TED BRIDIS .c The Associated Press

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.

AP-NY-08-19-99 1927EDT

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

And Duane,

With all respect, please take your advertisements elsewhere?

Feel free to start your own thread.

Best of luck, regardless. Maybe.

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

That's where this thread needs to be.

Eyes open. Here is where it started.

-- To (the@very.top), August 20, 1999.