Will the LIGO team kindly update their PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS paper with the correct diagrams using actual data analysis algorithms that are not “done by eye,” nor “hand-tuned”?

Purely illustrative

And there are legitimate questions about that trust. New Scientist has learned, for instance, that the collaboration decided to publish data plots that were not derived from actual analysis. The paper on the first detection in Physical Review Letters used a data plot that was more “illustrative” than precise, says Cornish. Some of the results presented in that paper were not found using analysis algorithms, but were done “by eye”.

Brown, part of the LIGO collaboration at the time, explains this as an attempt to provide a visual aid. “It was hand-tuned for pedagogical purposes.” He says he regrets that the figure wasn’t labelled to point this out.

What do the plots which are NOT hand tuned, nor done by eye, look like? Have they been made public?

Is not the chief aim of science to exalt the TRUTH of physical OBSERVATION?  Is not a great responsibility of science to be HONEST with the PUBLIC who funds it to the tune of billions?

Today, November 5th 2018, I screen captured some of the LIGO plots from Physical Review Letters review, which I share below.  Which of these plots represent real data?  Which of these plots are not “hand tuned”? Which of these plots are not “done by eye?”

What do the plots which are NOT hand tuned, nor done by eye, look like? When will they be made public?

Hopefully today’s leading theoretical physicists like Sabine Hossenfelder will run the data, which is now available to the public, herself, and let us see her analysis.  Indeed, as a leading theoretical physicist with a vast following, it is Dr. Hossenfelder’s duty to analyze the data herself.  We await her expert insight and judgment.