I quoted this as Quinn saying that he can't measure gravity:
“It’s not a thing one likes to leave unresolved, we should be able to measure gravity.”
“The Newtonian constant of gravitation, a constant too difficult to measure?”
You denied this and quoted this from Quinn in your defense:
"measuring G is hard, but we should be able to do better"
That's the best you could provide. A statement that it's hard and they need to do better isn't a statement that he's doing it. You are the person playing semantic word games here, attempting to warp clear statements with vain interpretations. You are stamping your feet and just can't accept being wrong.
You keep using the same quote of Dr Quinn, take from the Sci. Am. and Futurism articles.
It has been pointed out that Dr. Quinn, and the other physicists quoted on both articles, have had much more to say on the matter of measuring G than the few words you keep regurgitating
ad nasuem. I would recommend that you (and anyone else reading through this mess of a thread) look up what the scientists say on the matter themselves, in their peer-reviewed publications.
From Dr Quinn:
"Who needs a more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)? The short answer is, nobody, for the moment..."
"Could these unresolved discrepancies in G hide some new physics? This seems unlikely. I believe undiscovered systematic errors in all or some of these new experiments is the answer — G is difficult to measure but it should not be too difficult!"
Excerpts from :
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3651?proof=tOr go to Dr. Speake's google Scholar profile and look up the work hes done since his PhD, including recent developmental of new methodologies to mimic a torsion balance experiment while limiting external sources of noise from ground movements due to farfield seismic vibration.
Do the same for all the physicists in the articles described here, and in the wiki. Decide for yourself what the experts have to say.