Linda
You say in examining the responses (as a non-technical person):
"I felt there were many objections relating to vested interests, not wanting to accept the ideas offered and in certain cases due to a personal dislike of the person offering the ideas."
What 'vested interests'?
Frank Robinson? Readers no doubt had in mind his vested interest when reading the explanation he posted. Good reason to be cautious, but it doesn't automatically follow what he said was untrue.
Instructors/pilots/owners? It could be argued they have a strong vested interest in their own safety rather than the success of the model.
Engineers? Why would they have a vested interest in any one model?
Top engineering test pilots? None of them employed by Robinson.
not wanting to accept the ideas offered
Or rejecting them after proper consideration? You make no mention of the numerous informed, carefully reasoned and detailed posts by people well-qualified to comment on the ideas offered.
personal dislike of the person offering the ideas
It's true there were sometimes signs of exasperation with 'the person'. Whether or not that was justified or understandable in the circumstances is a matter of opinion but, if you assume it was simply because of the 'controversial' ideas offered, you're mistaken.
You say you've posted "statements of fact". And just a few opinions?
"It was stated above that if the helicopters were flown the Robinson way there would be no problems. This is and is not true."
Who says?
"The Robinson way is a cosmetic cover up to avoid major design changes."
Do you offer that as a statement of fact?
You refer to
"the Robinson helicopter line (R-22 and R-44)".
Do you mean that? Your comments seem to relate to the R22.
I'm sure people would be interested to read a copy of the 'private letter' from the Acting Chairman of the NTSB to the Administrator of the FAA. Will you post it?
Heliport
BTW, no vested interest (or any other particular interest) in Robinsons.