Journalists are invited to join the National Science Foundation (NSF) as it brings together scientists from the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) and Virgo collaborations, as well as representatives for some 70 observatories, Monday, Oct. 16, at 10 a.m. EDT at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The gathering will begin with an overview of new findings from LIGO, Virgo and partners that span the globe, followed by details from telescopes that work with the LIGO and Virgo collaborations to study extreme events in the cosmos. The first detection of gravitational waves, made Sept. 14, 2015 and announced Feb. 11, 2016, was a milestone in physics and astronomy; it confirmed a major prediction of Albert Einstein's 1915 general theory of relativity, and marked the beginning of the new field of gravitational-wave astronomy. Since then, there have been three more confirmed detections, one of which (the most recently announced) was the first confirmed detection seen jointly by both the LIGO and Virgo detectors." https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.j...=NSF&from=news

Nothing has been detected so far - the noise correlation, swept under the carpet by LIGO conspirators, is fatal for any scientific experiment. NSF should have organized a conference devoted to the noise correlation first:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Was It All Just Noise? Independent Analysis Casts Doubt On LIGO's Detections. A team of five researchers - James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, and Pavel Naselsky - from the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, presented their own analysis of the openly available LIGO data. And, unlike the LIGO collaboration itself, they come to a disturbing conclusion: that these gravitational waves might not be signals at all, but rather patterns in the noise that have hoodwinked even the best scientists working on this puzzle. [...] A few weeks ago, Andrew Jackson presented his results in Munich. A member of the local physics faculty (who'd rather not be named) finds the results "quite disturbing" and hopes that the collaboration will take the criticism of the Danes to heart. "Until LIGO will provide clear scientific(!) explanation why these findings are wrong, I would say the result of the paper to some extent invalidates the reliability of the LIGO discovery."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...os-detections/

James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, Pavel Naselsky, June 27, 2017: "As a member of the LIGO collaboration, Ian Harry states that he "tried to reproduce the results quoted in 'On the time lags of the LIGO signals'", but that he "[could] not reproduce the correlations claimed in section 3". Subsequent discussions with Ian Harry have revealed that this failure was due to several errors in his code. After necessary corrections were made, his script reproduces our results. His published version was subsequently updated. [...] It would appear that the 7 ms time delay associated with the GW150914 signal is also an intrinsic property of the noise. The purpose in having two independent detectors is precisely to ensure that, after sufficient cleaning, the only genuine correlations between them will be due to gravitational wave effects. The results presented here suggest this level of cleaning has not yet been obtained and that the identification of the GW events needs to be re-evaluated with a more careful consideration of noise properties."
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-w...nal-waves.html

James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, Pavel Naselsky, August 21, 2017: "In view of unsubstantiated claims of errors in our calculations, we appreciated the opportunity to go through our respective codes together - line by line when necessary - until agreement was reached. This check did not lead to revisions in the results of calculations reported in versions 1 and 2 of arXiv:1706.04191 or in the version of our paper published in JCAP. It did result in changes to the codes used by our visitors [LIGO conspirators]. [...] In light of the above, our view should be clear: We believe that LIGO has not yet attained acceptable standards of data cleaning. Since we regard proof of suitable cleaning as a mandatory prerequisite for any meaningful comparison with specific astrophysical models of GW events, we continue to regard LIGO's claims of GW discovery as interesting but premature."
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-w...-comment2.html

Pentcho Valev