>> "If you back up a sentence..." > I'm talking about the sentence where... Nope. It doesn't work that way. You don't get to cherry-pick sentences and demand

>> "If you back up a sentence..." > I'm talking about the sentence where... Nope. It doesn't work that way. You don't get to cherry-pick sentences and demand that they be explained out of context. You need to understand what "low-latency" means and why the GCN exists in order to understand the meaning of those sentences. You can't choose to ignore that. > they treated the data from a certain time interval exceptionally Huh? There's only the data from the time of the detection. What other time interval would they be analyzing? > The sentence I quoted seems to suggest otherwise. Only if you fill in gaps in your understanding with your own bias and ignore facts that contradict your theory. The text is pretty clear to me. LIGO and Fermi made two independent observations. Both were issued as GCN Notices. Then, 13 minutes after the second notice, because they had two independent observations that were consistent with a neutron star merger, they decided to disseminate this information to observatories for follow-up observations in optical. > I don't know the details of all the ways bias can sneak into the results The detection was triggered by software. You can't choose to ignore that. > Anyway, its easy to test. Have Fermi, etc send them some... I have a better idea. If you want to accuse the scientists of intellectual dishonesty, why don't you provide some evidence? @raattgift pointed out to you that all the observations and communications are timestamped. I've given you links to the software used to analyze the data. Go ahead and audit it yourself if you think something's amiss. Your inability to understand the content of a paper is not evidence. It just means you don't understand the paper. If you have any concerns about the validity of the GW data analysis, keep in mind that they predicted the location (including distance---so three dimensions, not just two, which severely cuts down the volume for potential matches) based on the GW data. Follow-up observations (again, this is the purpose of GCN Circulars) found a transient at the predicted location in visible light, IR, UV, radio, and X-ray, consistent with a neutron star merger. I think the scientists have met their burden of proof. If you want to call shenanigans, the burden of proof is on you now. I'm done with this conversation. You can have the last word if you wish. I won't be replying to any more comments.