http://ecatsite.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/nasa_1989.pdf
First, let me say what a pleasure it is to read something from NASA from a time when they valued quality rather than hype. This 1989 reference is a technical memo. It's not a formal scientific document that's been suppressed for over 20 years. The authors made it clear that they were attempting to detect excess neutrons, which they didn't. They said their result was negative and that was that.
For the benefit of those who do not wish to read further, we state that our neutron---detector counts for palladium in vacuum, palladium in deuterium, and palladium in hydrogen did not differ significantly and we were unable to detect evidence of the second reaction.They didn't make any hyped up claims saying they could use the small amount of heat as an energy source. They simply said it was a mystery. Neither did they recommend further testing. The authors seemed unimpressed with the results. The memo was unclassified. Why in the world would anybody suppress such a mundane memo that claimed a negative result?
You totally miss the significance (probably deliberately), both past and present. Past....this is a completely unambiguous PROOF that cold fusion is real (of course, that is also true of the present). If followed up on, the field would probably be ten years ahead of where it is today. The reason it was not followed up on is the "groupthink suppression" of the idea that you could have CF without neutrons. Present....this report is a completely unbiased proof that CF is real. The fact that the authors bought into the "groupthink" and thought the experiment was a failure is proof of a lack of bias in favor of CR.
There are still a lot of physicists today that are victims or promulgators of the "groupthink meme". And there is no doubt whatsoever that there is a group of people who work behind the scenes to prevent funding of CF research, prevent promotion (or, if possible, promote the termination) of researchers engaged or interested in CF work.
Yes, this "is" a "technical memo" (or internal research report). I've read (and written) more of these than I care to think about and am still doing so. That doesn't invalidate the scientific content.