They're getting good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur material now and regardless of the exact accuracy of those dates, nothing more than around 60K years should radiocarbon date at all.
Its interesting that , in the very "proof video" you presented the guy said that "Dinosaur bones cannot be age dated directly"
YET, theres the old crap you keep bringing up by Dahmer and Kouznetsov (1993) where they actually DID C14 on Dinosaur bones from te Carnegie Institute.
The Carnegie dinosaur bones in question were previously dated by isotope dating on the surrounding ash flows which showed upper and lower dates with ranges of 130 to 150 MY old. that was based upon several converging techniques on the ash itself. The bones were then independently dated by K40/Ar40 (NOT K/Ar 40/39). The bones were dated at about 140 MY. So, the upper and lower ash deposits were earlier and younger than the dinosaur fossil which was deteremined by K/Ar to be about somewhere in between.(That's good enough for a GM car)
When Dahmer got his samples from Carnegie. He was claiming that his team was doing an "environmental chem analyses" of the other elements in the fossil bone (F/K/Pb/ etc) To do a statistical analysis of the other elements to compare with other dinosaurs of that Formation area. (It was a new technique in the early 90's)
SO, Dahmer was given a few chunks of bone that had broken off and were shards in the storage tray bottom . He was ALSO admonished to do "Good systematic cleanups" by James King (The museum Director)
WHY?---because the fossils were "Heavily coated with shellac and other organic preservatives" (Gee , I wonder how old shellac is?-well we were soon to find out)
When the samples were submitted to radioisotope labs U of Az and U of Ga, each of these labs also informed the submitter of the fact that there was shellac and another mass of coatings on the specimen. DAHMER SAID TO GO AHEAD ANYWAY AND DO THE C14.
That's undoubtedly where the 20000 year dates came from. They were measuring shellac that , on a mass basis, was factored in the sample mix). SO, while the date may have been too old for new shellac, it was also too young for a real dinosaur. BUT, do you think Dahmer and his crew gave a ****? NO CAUSE THEY WERE FRAUDING SCIENCE
Later, it turned out that, since the labs RETAINED the samples for archiving they were able to determine that the Carbon that was sampled WAS NOT carbon that was related to bone or bone protein.
In other words, LL the carbon that was analyzed came from shellac)
Also, the labs, by using C14 "free" substances (like Precambrian graphite or Carboniferous Age coal) would conduct "systematic source QA" of each of the separate steps involved in doing their C14 analyses. Theres a few separate segments involved in sample insertion before the GCMS even is turned on
Theres a combustion segment
A CO2 gas purification segment
A vacuum line distribution andinsertion segment
Each of these add some contamination by new carbon and it was during these samplings that the labs systematized the determination of these other C sources as part of the sample train.
Nowadays we get a +/- report on the LAB processes as well as a +/- of the sample age.
HOWEVER, getting back to DAHMER, he used those numbers as a report of how C14 was found in dinosaur fossils that were suppose to be "millions and millions " of years old.
The C14 in dinosaur bones has , as part of its pedigree of Creation "science" been able to attain the pinnacle of evidence up there with Piltdown man the Cardiff Giant and the Paluxey River hoax