Wow, and he's extremely reserved about the whole thing - usually he's like a cold shower, raining on the press's parade. I like the SN1987A counter-example, though - it does raise a few questions. Not even remotely conclusive, but it makes it more puzzling.
Well normally the press or the PR people representing the scientists blow things all out of proportion. In this case it seems everyone is being pretty reserved and the claims, while extraordinary are already heavily couched in caveats.
I am expecting one of two things to happen:
a. A systemic error in the measurements, which is most likely IMO.
b. a modification of physics similar to how relativity was a modification of Newtonian physics.
