Carbon dating of textiles has had problems with accuracy: an Egyptian mummy-wrapping (Manchester mummy collection) showed an age 700 years younger than the body.
Yes, I know. . . and I told you why. The cloth of those wrappings were inextricably covered and penetrated with contamination from various ages of bacteria, lichen, mold which, when taken in total, had an average age far younger than the original pristine cloth of the wrappings that covered the mummy. When the cloth of the wrapping was dated, they dated the melange of cloth, dead bacteria, dead lichen, dead mold, etc., which was unremovable from the wrappings, because over the years, they had become part of the wrappings. They got a correct age for the AVERAGE of everything in the mixture collected over several thousand years of accumulation.
Now, what part of, "we know exactly why the 1988 C-14 test was skewed," is it that you fail to comprehend? Is it the three "independent, peer-reviewed, published in scientific journals" studies, that proved the tested samples were contaminated with a "sixteenth or seventeenth century cotton patch" equal to forty to sixty percent of the tested weight, exactly proportionate to the tested origination dates? Or perhaps it's the fact "we still have the fifth unburnt sub-sample which is cotton patch" on one side, and original Flax Linen on the other side? Is that it? What are you failing to grasp that causes you to reach back repeatedly to an already falsified hypothesis?