Thank you, ER, for taking the time to clarify intellectual property rights to your thought and work. This is a big deal for ownership of one’s work is the stimulus of innovation.
I was ok with being anonymous to the information in the original report, as there was a greater desire to "get information out there". There has been a significant gap to critical information that the public (& press) are being informally "kept in the dark".
I feel many FReepers have contributed, not just myself, in this effort. Robert Bea has done a great public service in getting the information out there. His analysis is correct and thorough. His expertise in human factors, engineering, and tremendous experience was critical to the swift acceptance of the report. The "forums" just provided an accelerated approach to present "overwhelming" evidence to make his correct conclusions public.
If the report was left "as is" where it identified "publicly available information" as sources, this would have been fine. However, when a decision was made to include "attributions" this is where the problem arose. Whoever was assembling these cross-references and attributions, had to have known that great error was going to be inserted into this report. Now, instead of this report's findings being the focus of attention, this notable mistake in attribution could cause negative outcomes to CCRM & upon Robert.
That would be unfortunate as the public is the customer.
I really don't need the attention... I just enjoy discussion with other FReepers. I also have family in Sacramento that I originally became involved just to update them on what is really going on. I couldn't get any answers so I took to my background abilities to find answers.