&gt; ... I still have a sense that the false positive rate is just too high.<p>That might be true in principle, but considering what&#x27;s at stake, I think the investigators will bend over backward to avoid making a claim that isn&#x27;t ironclad. Remember that in real science, investigators look for explanations that will falsify their results, and only give credence to results that resist sincere efforts at falsification. (Contract this to the outlook of a pseudoscientist, who only looks for reasons to confirm his results.)<p>Remember the incident in which some investigators claimed that neutrinos were exceeding the speed of light? In truth, they were looking for reasons to confirm their result, not falsify it. They were wrong, the real cause was a bad connection and ... they were pressured to resign their positions.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Faster-than-light_neutrino_ano...</a><p>&gt; ... the collaboration can&#x27;t be expected to do full, detailed analysis of false signals a dozen times a year.<p>That&#x27;s true, but they could instead choose a handful of genuinely peculiar signals, signals unlikely to have natural causes, and try to falsify those.<p>As above, there are a handful of cosmological sources that would produce -- not a brief signal -- but a pattern of signals, like a rising tone created by merging black holes. Those would be more interesting, as well as being easier to compare to false terrestrial sources.