I'm not interested in disucssing statistical analysys until it can be proven that the creationist community has access to the data source on the 14C dates for the Ferguson Chronology, among other things.
Then stop posting your amateurish and unfounded "analyses".
Also, if cannot be established where rings were subjectively added by researchers, then there is no point in talking about statistics.
You're confused on on the burden of proof. If you think "rings were subjectively added by researchers", it's up to you to present evidence for your claim. "0" might well mean "present but less than the increment of measurement".
Real science requires original data.
You got original data. You want something better, put up some money, get a permit, and go core a tree. Gee, wonder why Wody didn't do that?
As it is a huge majority of the "matches" involve rings of "0" width.
Since you are "analysing" by your own undocumented and unverified methods, this claim is meaningless noise. Specify your methodology and your mathematiocal justification for it.
My current hypothesis is that the "0"'s were fraudlently placed
Hypothesize whatever you wish. When you have evidence that supports your hypothesis, present it. Unspecified and (almost certainly) invalid "analyses" aren't evidence.