Yes, I already dealt with this. Two separate experiments. One claims that they should have seen evidence that they were not set up for. Perhaps they would have, perhaps not.
Once again, you were going nuts over an experiment that was only 3.5 sigma, compared to this ones 3 sigma. They are fairly sure from the results in the Minnesota mine experiment, they are just not 5 sigma sure.
That's funny, that's not what the scientists themselves think.
Another dark-matter sign from a Minnesota mine : Nature News Blog
"Two other possible detections from the CDMS search,
reported in 2010, turned out to be
indistinguishable from background collisions from other, non-WIMP, sources. The same may yet hold true for the latest findings...
“
We do not believe this result rises to the level of a discovery, but it does call for further investigation,” said Kevin McCarthy, a CDMS team member from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge"
In other words it is time to ask for more funding.
Why do you misrepresent the actual facts?
"
The CDMS tries to get around that by shielding its detectors as much as possible and by precisely calculating the rate of expected collisions from other, background sources.
The three possible WIMP events popped out of data in which 0.7 similar events would be expected from background, McCarthy said. Two of them occurred in the same detector.
He reported the signal at a 99.81% confidence level, or around three sigma in statistical language. “We
favor the WIMP plus background hypothesis,” he said."
Of course they favor that hypothesis, their careers rely on it and so does future funding. So there is also a 99.81% confidence level that they are merely background noise, and 10 to 1 odds that's what they are and you will never hear of this again or they will finally come out and admit to it.
But then we find out the real actual statistical results.
http://cdms.berkeley.edu/CDMSII_Si_DM_Results.pdf
" We performed a profile likelihood analysis in which the background rates were treated as nuisance parameters and the WIMP mass and cross section were the parameters of interest. The highest likelihood is found for a WIMP mass of 8.6 GeV/c^2 and a WIMP-nucleon cross section of 1.9 10^41cm^2. The goodness-of-t test of this WIMP+background hypothesis results in a p-value of
68%, while the background-only hypothesis fits the data with a p-value of 4.5%. A profile likelihood ratio test including the event energies finds that the data favor the WIMP+background hypothesis over our background-only hypothesis with a p-value of
0.19%. Though this result favors a WIMP interpretation over the known-background-only hypothesis, we do not believe this result rises to the level of a discovery."
So the WIMP theory comes out .19% more favorable than just background, which is why they clearly state "we do not believe this result rises to the level of a discovery."
So you still have no discoveries of dark matter after 25 years of searching. And in 25 more years you will still have none. Fairie Dust can never be detected, because it is Fairie Dust.