What does this mean? What can happen next? What help is needed from investigative journalists?
On February 21, 2017 Crosetto received an Appeal response letter from the Director of the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals dated February 1, 2017, stating: “The Appeal filed on January 6, 2017 by Dario B. Crosetto, Case No FIA-17-001, is hereby granted… This matter is hereby remanded to the Department of Energy’s Office of Public Information, which shall issue a new determination in accordance with the instructions set forth in the above Decision.”Q: What was Crosetto’s Appeal about?
A: Suppression, meaning the disappearance from the DOE records of hundreds of pages of documents, emails and letters relative to Crosetto’s invention beneficial to the mission of DOE, to the advancement in science, to taxpayers, to humanity in saving many lives, and also in saving millions of dollars in High Energy Physics experiments funded by DOE. However, there is much more to this than the disappearance of hundreds of pages of documents.
In the Summer of 2016, when Crosetto began to question the conduct and actions of some DOE employees, he was advised by the Office of the Secretary of Energy to verify the existence of his correspondence and documentation in the DOE records by requesting them officially from the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which he did via email and by filling out a form on July 29, 2016.
He received the response from FOIA on September 30, 2016 which showed that hundreds of pages of documents, emails and letters relative to Crosetto’s invention were apparently destroyed from DOE records. As a result, Crosetto submitted a letter of Appeal on December 29, 2016.
Q: What can happen next?
A: A naïve interpretation of the disappearance of documents that FOIA could not find on September 30, 2016, would be that the different agencies overlooked DOE databases and now they are providing a few additional documents, and/or to protect the privacy they could claim that DOE would not release other documents. As stated in the Appeal’s response letter, any aggrieved party may then seek judicial review in the district in which the requester resides… Or it offers mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies. Without the help of investigative journalists this process could add more years on top of the twenty Crosetto has already waited to make the truth prevail, sandbagging the truth with bureaucracy, judicial review, costing effort, time and money that Crosetto alone cannot sustain.
Q: Why is help needed from investigative journalists?
A: Here is a more complete picture proving suppression of inventions beneficial to humanity that requires an intervention from investigative journalists to protect the interests of the public.
Besides Crosetto’s request on July 29, 2016, to FOIA to verify the existence of important documentation at DOE and his Appeal on December 29, 2016, he was also advised on July 26, 2016 to submit a request to another DOE agency overviewing the proper conduct and actions of DOE agents. This other agency is the DOE Inspector General to whom Crosetto asked to analyze several inconsistent actions and statements within the Office of High Energy Physics of DOE, in conflict with the role and mission of DOE. Just to mention a few: Crosetto was requested by them to provide compelling ingredients for a presentation to DOE, and was promised an answer if, in their opinion, his case was not sufficiently compelling. He presented a project that would increase performance and reduce DOE costs to 1/1000 of the current cost, but never received the promised response. Crosetto also requested the DOE Inspector General to address the contradictory, self-incriminating statements made in official emails by DOE agents assigning grants, who blocked Crosetto’s emails, denying any communication via email between Crosetto and DOE employees. The office of the Inspector General stated in July 2016 that he should receive an answer within one to two weeks. To date no answer has not been provided.
An investigative journalist representing the public interest and reporting the answers received by these decision makers would help stop the suppression of Crosetto’s inventions.
For example, after CERN Director General on February 2, 2017 granted Crosetto’s request of a public scientific review of his inventions (asked via the President of the Socialists and Democrats group at the European Parliament, Dr. Gianni Pittella and cardio-surgeon Dr. Vincenzo Vigna) by appointing three experts (Andrew Lankford, Joel Butler and Nadia Pastrone) to organize a discussion on Crosetto’s invention which will include experts in the field, investigative journalists could ask when this would take place.
An investigation could then proceed with further questions to these leaders to explain the evidence of the three slides of the 4,000 electronic data processing boards showing in slide 1 the timetable of the workplan carried on in several years, starting in 1998 of the CERN-CMS Level-1 trigger, in slide 2 a short description of the installation and maintenance of the system, and in slide 3 the physical layout of the electronics (signed by the author, Wesley Smith) in a room approximately 22m x 16m that can be replaced by a single crate 0.5m x 0.8m with 9 electronic boards of the 3D-Flow OPRA system having much higher performance, described in the 271-page proposal proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries. The article presented at the 2016 IEEE Real-Time Conference in June 2016 by Smith’s colleagues stated on the first page, left column, that the 4.000 boards of the legacy trigger by Smith were trashed and replaced with 100 electronic boards. This proves that Smith’s 4.000 boards did not have the capability to identify the sought after particle and filter the background noise that has wasted over $100 million, while Wesley Smith was aware of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention that could have solved the problem at a fraction of the cost in 1994 in a cylinder 1.8m tall, 1m in diameter, and in 1999 in 6 crates 9U VME as reported in Crosetto’s peer-review article NIM A vol. 436, 1999, pp. 341-385. (also described in pages 102 to 117 of the 271-page proposal). The new 3D-Flow OPRA invention provides a staggering performance improvement compared to the 4,000 boards by Smith and also compared to the new 100 boards installed in 2016.
An investigative journalist could determine why Nadia Patrone told Crosetto on June 3, 2016 that if his 3D-Flow OPRA system could save money and increase performance it should be looked into even if Roberto Carlin, responsible for the CMS Level-1 Trigger al CERN, had stated that he was not interested; but then on June 14, 2016, she wrote Crosetto an email in which she states: “When I will have time and opportunity to examine the documentation you sent me and if I would find it relevant , I will personally look for you or will ask someone to contact you”. Now eight months have passed since Pastrone’s email and still she did not provide an answer. Furthermore, even after being appointed on February 2, 2017, by CERN Director General to organize such a discussion, she has given no indication as to when she plans to address the issue.
An investigative journalist could ask Michael Lauer, Director of Extramural Research at the National Institute of Health, why they continue to fund the authors of the Explorer project (over $3 million per year, starting in 2015, for a total of $15.5 million) after Crosetto presented at the 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference (distributing 600 copies of the description of his approach to the participants to the conference) his innovation of intensifying computation at the front-end of PET devices rather than at the back end. He talked to the authors of the Explorer who not only could not refute that Crosetto’s approach was superior, but who even decided, as confirmed by Bill Moses, one of the authors of the Explorer, to abandon the implementation of their Explorer project according to the design submitted to NIH in 2015, as a consequence of Crosetto’s irrefutable scientific remarks proving the unjustified high costs of their original design approved by NIH. Dr. Moses agreed to discuss the advantages of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS compared to the Explorer before NIH that is funding the Explorer if Dr. Lauer called such a meeting; however, Dr. Lauer continues to fund the Explorer and has not called for such a meeting.
For all the above reasons, the role of an investigative journalist is essential to avoid the repetition of the mistake made with Semmelweis