In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.00464

Title: Did LIGO detect dark matter?

Almost by definition, black-hole physics is the same no matter what the
black holes are "made of". So, of course, they could be made of dark
matter, or back issues of the ApJ, or whatever.

But presumably you are well enough informed to know that the dark
matter is non-baryonic and why that means SN-generated BHs and PBHs
must be distinguished in conventional astrophysics when it comes to
dark matter research

Yes, but there is no way one can distinguish them in the LIGO data.

for primordial black holes as dark matter. It's saying they could be
dark matter, and that black holes in this mass range are not ruled out
(though I think the Lacy & Ostriker argument rules out them being a
substantial fraction of cosmological dark matter).

Perhaps you should review that paper, and post a LINK to that paper
(if it is from the arxiv era), and make sure more recent research has
not invalidated their conclusions.

It's Lacey, not Lacy; sorry about that. Pre-arXiv. ADS has only one
refereed-journal paper by these two authors (there is also a
conference-proceedings contribution with the same title but without a
question mark). So, go the the ADS abstract search and search for
papers with Lacey AND Ostriker. Then there are links to the full text.

They were thinking about larger-mass black holes, but on the other hand
VLBI has improved as well in the last 30 years. I don't know what the
current limits, but presumably lensing limits can now rule out
lower-mass objects.

It seems to me that the paper is jumping on the bandwagon and trying to
get "LIGO" and "dark matter" into one paper. Not wrong, but not really
relevant.

Weren't you the one accusing me of making disparaging comments about
the motives of authors.

There is a HUGE difference between claiming that someone intentionally
fudged their results to get an answer they wanted to get, and expressing
the opinion that a decision might have been made to write a paper (as I
noted, "not wrong") which contains some topical buzzwords as opposed to
writing some other paper.