This document in English is available in pdf at: goo.gl/EJpKyq
Crosetto responds to statements made by Dr. Andrew Lankford, Chairman of HEPAP, leader of the U.S. groups working on the ATLAS Trigger and Data Acquisition Systems at CERN, former ATLAS Deputy Spokesperson, regarding my 3D-Flow OPRA and a request to follow scientific procedures complying with rules respecting science, colleagues and serving taxpayers.
I have known Andy Lankford for more than 25 years when I was working at the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in Texas and he was head of the Electronic group at the SDC Detector.
In 1993, together with Joel Butler, he was appointed by the Director of the SSC (also Director of Fermilab) to organize a formal, major, public scientific review of my 3D-Flow invention, which took place at FERMILAB on December 14, 1993. Lankford was responsible to defined the charges to the reviewers. The formal report (goo.gl/zP76Tc) by the review panel recognized the validity of my 3D-Flow invention. Lankford, in a 1993 letter (goo.gl/8jaxDH) wrote about my invention: “… a technique to perform fast, programmable triggers …”. Several senior experts in the field, some working in competing experiments, for over twenty years, have endorsed in writing the validity of my invention (see citations at “goo.gl/GIC5aR” and a few complete letters at “goo.gl/VXBx33“) proving advantages to all of them, not just to one experiment.
On July 11, 2017, I received from Lankford the email reported below which shows an attitude opposite to the professional statements and behavior in the previous years, including last time when I met him at CERN in building 40 on January 11, 2011.
On July 13, 2017, I contacted Andy Lankford on the phone to ask explanations about his email; however, I was not able to talk to him not even by going through the Atlas Secretariat, nor I received an answer to my emails. Therefore, I left a message with the Atlas Secretariat to ask him if he could respond to them so they could kindly report his answer to me about determining what sort of meeting would be appropriate at CERN as they mentioned via Butler’s February 28th email.
During the following weeks, I continued to worked with CERN service-desk to try to understand what was the reason my email continued to be blocked. I informed CERN service-desk about the email I received from Andy Lankford that makes one think he could have blocked my email, however, I have not received and answer and to date my email is still blocked from CERN.
Although Lankford’s emails response was not very friendly and cooperative to address issues scientifically, I am doing my best to provide professional, scientific answers related to my invention replacing 4,000 boards with 9 boards, which provide higher performance at one thousandth the cost. Who does not want that and why?
The following are the original statements by Dr. Andrew Lankford, those from CERN IT support service-desk and mine.
From: Andrew J. Lankford [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 12:25 AM
Subject: No contact
Please do not call me. Please do not write to me. I do not want to and will not talk to you.
I want you to stop using my name in your emails to others.
Sent from my iPad
From: Crosetto Dario [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 2:17 PM To: ‘Andrew J. Lankford’ <email@example.com> Subject: RE: legitimacy to contact professionals holding position of responsibility to serve taxpayers and handling their money
Please could you tell me the reason for your request?
Last time that I met you in building 40 at CERN on January 11, 2011 with Prof. Vincenzo Vigna, we had a cordial conversation and we seemed in agreements on scientific issues when we discussed the rules of the Leonardo da Vinci competition.
What happened after that to make the request below? I remember addressing letters to the leaders in this field in September 2009 and in other letters, including also your name because of the position you were holding. I found that legitimate and because we met in 2011 and you did not say anything, I thought that also you found it legitimate to address scientific issues to leaders and experts in the field.
Please let me know the reason for your request.
From: Crosetto Dario [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 1:54 AM To: ‘Andrew J. Lankford’ <email@example.com> Subject: RE: legitimacy to contact professionals holding position of responsibility to serve taxpayers and handling their money
I am contacting you as the Chairman of HEPAP (High Energy Physics Advisory Panel), as the Deputy Spokesperson of Atlas Experiment at CERN and as the person with several responsibilities related to making the best use of taxpayer money to advance science in particle detection by providing the most efficient and cost-effective Level-1 Trigger that can provide the most powerful tool to uncover the unknown and to confirm or exclude with accurate measurements the existence of a particle predicted by theoretical physicists.
As long as you will hold any position related to these responsibilities, on behalf of taxpayers I will legitimately address pertinent questions and send appropriate email to your attention and refer to your name for things that are related to your position. The day that you will resign from all these positions of responsibilities, I will contact the person replacing you and you will have all the rights to ask me or anyone else not to contact you if you wish so, …and I will respect your desire.
Please just respond professionally according to your duty as per your job description and put aside any personal consideration.
I have asked to discuss openly, publicly my 3D-Flow OPRA systems which offers much greater performance than all Level-1 trigger systems at CERN at a fraction of the cost, including a much higher performance with respect to the ATLAS ROI (Region of Interest) Level-1 Trigger, present and the one planned for future upgrades of the LHC that were presented at the last IEEE-NSS Conference in Strasbourg, France on November 2016.
The following are a few of the several email exchange with CERN service-desk to an account that has no filter.
From: Crosetto Dario [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 9:09 AM To: ‘CERN Service Desk’ <email@example.com>; ‘additional email address that is reaching CERN service-desk with no filter’ Cc: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com> Subject: RE: INC1411061 “blocked email ”
Dear Franck and Amelie,
Please find the answer to your questions below in between the characters ***> my answer <*** and a copy of a recent rejection NDR from CERN email system. It is blocking 100% my emails from firstname.lastname@example.org
Please can you remove the block to my email email@example.com and allow an email to any CERN employee with the text “test” on the subject line or in the body of the email go through as it can be sent by any other person in the world without being blocked?
Apparently all problems of blocked emails started from when I sent an official email with legitimate questions on behalf of taxpayers to Andy Lankford, Joel Butler and Nadia Pastrone on May 16, 2017.
The email sent on May 16, 2017 with my legitimate requests is reported below.
Because in a previous email you stated the any CERN employee can report as S P A M and block email addresses, please could you ask Andy Lankford what is his job and duties toward taxpayers, why he wrote the email above on July 11, 2017 and if he is the person who started this problem by blocking my email on May 16, 2017?
CERN IT support service-desk
From: CERN Service Desk [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 2:12 AM To: ‘additional email address that is reaching CERN service-desk with no filter’; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: INC1411061 “blocked email ”
Ticket No: INC1411061 Short description: blocked email
Message from Franck Hotellier:
This is not normal. My request have not yet been taken into account. It should not take that long.
Just in case, I’ve just resent the sample of your message to our antispam provider.
Thanks for your patience,
03-08-2017 17:54:46 CEST – Guest (Comments) Reply from: email@example.com
Dear Franck and Amelie, I tested today at 4:00 pm and my email firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com> after 3 days is still blocked. Please let me know the reason. Thank you, Kind Regards, Dario Crosetto …
The Historical Communication from CERN IT support service-desk on this issue is very long and it goes back to May 2017.
The following is the email I sent yesterday to test if CERN is still blocking my email
From: United To End Cancer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 5:25 AM To: ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: FW: This is a test if the block to my email has been removed
This is a test if the block to my email has been removed
The following is the reply that I received confirming that my emails are still blocked by CERN.
CERN service-desk could not solve the technical problem.
I never received a reply from my enquire if Andy Lankford originated the blocking of my email as he clearly express in his email without providing a legitimate reason, in spite of being within his duties to take into consideration what can greatly save taxpayer money and benefits advancements in science.
CERN IT support service-desk
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 5:26 AM To: email@example.com Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
This is the mail system at host cernah02.cern.ch.
I’m sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It’s attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The mail system
<email@example.com>: host cernmxgwlb4.cern.ch[188.8.131.52] said: 550
5.7.1 The message was rejected due to content restrictions (in reply to end
of DATA command)
The same email was instead regularly delivered to another mailbox
The mail system
<firstname.lastname@example.org>: delivery via
ff-ip4-mx-vip2.prodigy.net[184.108.40.206]:25: 250 2.0.0 v7MAP8ME121356
Message accepted for delivery