As to point 4:
He collected historical data and used only what suited him best. Furthermore did he recalculate some of this historical data in a way that suited him, again he left the results that didn't fit in his research out.
I think that gives a laughable report.
Both the mass and the speed of light have a mysterious stabilisation when the measuringmethods got more accurate. Or well... measuring methods..
It wouldn't surprise me if the speed of light found in Setterfields table was the source for the calculation for the mass. The mass given is something like 10*10^-28 grams.
That was most certainly not measurable in the 19th century and I doubt we can measure it nowadays.