Dear Ivor.

Included in your mailing list I have been following  the "IEEE-Pelosi-Pieraccini-Catt-Case"

for several month, and now I thought for you it would be a favourable support.... ....

to concentrate all papers on  a single page.

And to show that suppression of science started long ago and still is lasting.

If you can reach a lot of people who are interested to search around this

page they also will become to know you and your fight aigainst peer review.

So I thought that you maybe can write the story of the Italians,

beginning with the discovery that Pelosi promoted in a peer review (!)

magazine the "fictional" book written by one of his co-professors on

the University of Florence,  simultaneously asking him to investigate the

"fictional" (but nevertheless recognized as scientific) problem of Catt's question

(or former anomaly, this is explained quickly) in a deeper way.

Already they had chanced to do so before and the nice professor-colleague

naturally of course published the paper in the same number, although

the novel warned any scientist not to work on Catt's question for the

sake of his career.

Then, what a surprise, the author of the book/novel  published

in IEE, not only in IEEE magazine and Catt now asked to have his response

published. They make the steeples higher and higher now not to

publish Catt's question and his reply in the peer reviewed IEEE.

Twisting and answering with ridiculous arguments (after Catt being

insulted by Pelosi via this very  peer-reviewed paper with out of academia usw.

like racist and others) the editor of IEEE tries to inhibit Catt's answer

to the already published papers about him and his question.  

One could think that they were astonished to find you still alive and vital enough to answer

personally to the thin, poor and being off the mark to have understood the problem,

the "Catt's question". And they commit the worse discourtesy - to talk

about someone in his precence  and not with him or asking him to speak for his own.

What a sleazy egotism of the editor. Can this be the core of peer-review,

slight against  an undesireable scientist and his questions to sustain the actual state?

This Catt's question based also on the work of Oliver Heaviside, who

inspired you to put "the question". Questions never can be false, never

can damage anything, normally they bring you ahead. Not so with the

answers. The already existing but different answers of well known

physicists should set up the alarm bells ringing  the "Italian" scientists and

others, that something is rotten in the understanding of electromagnetism

and the more questions come in, the more it can be revised.

And then Heaviside's "We reverse it" maybe will become the most important

quotation of the 21st century - as long as it can be showed that

the defence of the mainstream understanding of electromagnetism

has no future in this strange way.

So the story about the "Italians", readable like a criminal story on the

page - what happened last month, last week - and the prediction

that the editor of IEEE not will let "Catt's question" on a bigger stage

will show if the "Italians" can rescue their career, otherwise than

predicted in Pieraccini's own novel. But sometimes words are taking on a

momentum on it's own. Thrilling!

Kind regards – Sisi 20 December 20-16