As I said, I'm not certain that the above is an accurate description of events, but I believe it went something like that.
A wonderful illustration of the naysayer's art: "I only remember what suits my argument and I wouldn't dream of researching it before I post it even if it does lead astray even more readers with my tenuous grasp of the facts".
It hasn't 'slipped under the radar'. Most of us will have seen your original post and thought "Oh dear, not that old chestnut that has been discussed a thousand times without any firm conclusions either way?".
For the record, there is no evidence whatsoever that McCormick altered anything. It just suits the naysayers to perpetuate the urban myth that his 1959 book was a source of rhyming in the journal. Not proven. Barely even credible. And yet still people post it. Saying that you are unsure of your facts does not reduce the impact on the feableminded who believe everything that gets posted, therefore adding such caveats is no defence against the ignorance of the post.