[whatshisface]

The allegations are that the black hole image could have turned out to be anything, given different starting assumptions about what it would look like. The exact nature of this variation, along with the degree to which the other possibilities would be plausible, is up for debate. Unfortunately that debate is very technical and not suited for general-audience blog posts.

[CrazyStat]

The author of the post ignores all the work that went into validating that the methods they used give reasonably consistent results, including simulation studies and multiple blind analyses to make sure that they weren't just making the image they wanted to see.

This is discussed in the Caltech talk which is embedded in the post. It seems the author cherrypicked all the quotes that sound bad and ignored the parts that disagree with her narrative.