As usual, when confronted with an article full of facts, you start babbling about agendas and conspiracies, rather than even attempting to address anything in the article.
No, I didn't read the article. Plain and simple. This isn't the first of these threads I've been on nor is it the first time offers of non-proof have ever been presented. Sorry. No amount of snowjob articles will change the fact that 14c testing was based on faulty premises and those same faulty premises have just been carried over into every other method. When it comes right down to it, there is no dating method that can be said to work beyond things for which we know a solid date from observation.. and even then they give incorrect dates. But, oh, how accurate it is...