I'm not upset in the slightest. Just pointing out the obvious. If you'd like specifics from that article:
1) He gives the impression BC's are only valid under standard sea level conditions. Of course every ballistics program in existence will compensate for your actual environmental conditions so a sea level corrected BC is what you want. Using that method you can get accurate results anywhere you may happen to be on the planet. His mention of it gave the opposite impression.
2) The idea his crude drop measurements at 400 yds would be accurate enough to make comments on how long the bullet is yawing after the shot...quite laughable. The last time I saw him making ballistics comments based upon drops at 400 yds it turned out his group sizes were 9". Yes, 9". Hopefully this rifle shoots a bit better than that, but you get the point.
3) The overall impression the reader is left with is that BC's are not all that accurate and that they, along with ballistics software cannot be relied upon to accurately predict trajectory even out to only 400 yds. This is simply false. If he said 2000 yds, he could make a better case as that can get pretty darn difficult. But at only 400 yds if his results don't match predictions given accurate inputs it's due to flaws in his testing methods. But the article implies we should throw out all known exterior ballistic science because he
got some phunky results once. I think this does a disservice to the readers.
And to give you another idea of where he's coming from, he has said elsewhere no scope used to hunt big game should have any sort of exposed turrets or parallax adjustment. If he doesn't need or want them for the type of hunting he does, that's fine. But it illustrates he isn't exactly a long range shooting/hunting enthusiast, much less authority.
Anyway, you asked so there you go.
On subjects such as African hunting, tracking, other close range techniques, bullet terminal performance, etc, he is a wealth of information.