[Coyoteman]

If you follow the link you provided, you can see that the tree-rings don't line up very well at all. They are only marginally comparable. Then follow the link to the page that discusses the 'extension' process where pieces laying around, from peat bogs and old buildings are used and you get a much better idea of how unreliable tree-ring dating really is. There is at least as much variability and human interpretation in tree-ring dating as in anything else.

Finally, how was C14 dating modified based on tree-ring chronologies? Any at all?

Tree ring dating is normally done using standing dead bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of southeastern California.

By dating the rings in 10-year increments you establish a calibration curve.

[GourmetDan]

Doesn't matter where it occurs.

Points were, the 'extension' process and human interpretation.

Since you did not address those points, I assume that you recognize they are fatal to the claim.

[GourmetDan]

Oh yeah, and the point about whether C14 was modified as the result of this 'sychronization' w/ tree-rings.

Where is that process so that we can see where the variability lies? Could be all over the board, like the 'geologic column'.