At one point, as a test of credibility, a few skeptics in the LIGO administration put in some fake signal data into the LIGO data and, rather than determining that it was an anomaly or that there was no observable event, the LIGO scientists observed the area of the sky it was coming from went to work making up an elaborate story, doing "science" with it, like in the paper Markjo presented.
https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/a-null-result-is-not-a-failure
...a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data, maintaining strict confidentiality. They did just that in the early morning hours of 16 September 2010. Automated data analyses alerted us to an extraordinary event within eight minutes of data collection, and within 45 minutes we had our astronomer colleagues with optical telescopes imaging the area we estimated the gravitational wave to have come from. Since it came from the direction of the Canis Major constellation, this event picked up the nickname of the "Big Dog Event". For months we worked on vetting this candidate gravitational wave detection, extracting parameters that described the source, and even wrote a paper. Finally, at the next collaboration meeting, after all the work had been cataloged and we voted unanimously to publish the paper the next day. However, it was revealed immediately after the vote to be an injection and that our estimated parameters for the simulated source were accurate. Again, there was no detection, but we learned a great deal about our abilities to know when we detected a gravitational wave and that we can do science with the data. This became particularly useful starting in September 2015."
How do you "do science" and write a paper with data that was faked, on a section of the sky it did not come from, with stars and stellar events that did not produce it?
If you can do that, rather than identifying the issue, that sends your credibility down the drain.
This tells us that the underlying science and theories are really just a load of baloney. It is not real science.
I can’t make up my mind whether you are willfully being deceitful in your ‘interpretations’, just mistaken, or perhaps just sloppy. But you basically neutered the thrust of the paper you cited and bent it to your will by leaving some key phrases, sentences and paragraphs out.
You start with the quote, “…a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data…” In order to bolster your claim that, "How do you "do science" and write a paper with data that was faked…”
When in actuality, if you had included the beginning of the sentence and the previous paragraph, it all makes clear sense. You left out all of this:
"How do we know our data analyses are not missing them? And, when we do detect one, how do we know that the science we have extracted from the signal is reliable?
The answer is to do a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data, maintaining strict confidentiality.”
From the abstract:
"The cases reported in this study provide a snap-shot of the status of parameter estimation in preparation for the operation of advanced detectors.” i.e., the intent of the study.
i.e., real science