Thanks Corpuscles

I had seen the article earlier, but going through it again I see that the writer doesn't refute the 100 million thing, but only mentions it before going on to discuss other issues.
Martin has yet to explain his methodology, can anyone else say how he got to 100 million in the meanwhile?
...

CIRCULAR DATING AND PRECESSIONAL ASSUMPTIONS

Sweatman and Tsikritsis make elaborate arguments and extravagant claims for dating Gobekli artworks: “The probability that pillar 43 does not represent the date 10 950 BC is around one in 100 million.” This date happens to agree with the probable Younger Dryas event, but not due to their methods. Some Gobekli wall plaster was dated to BC 9530 (Dietrich & Schmidt, 2010), a thousand years after the probable impact. Some Gobekli researchers have noted that the soil infill and carbon and bone items in the plaster was older than the buildings. Sweatman sees no obstacle in a thousand years, and proposes a local observational record going back to BC 16 000, about 4000 years before the earlie