So what? Something caused that observation, but it wasn't something extraterrestrial. You also have to allow for one of the sensors to be wrong/noisy etc. and then being interpreted through the lens of observation via another.
Doesn't work that way: there is always an infinite list of possibilities without evidence to the contrary if you allow for a wide enough "solution space" (even if you have already an explanation).
You appear to be claiming that there's an infinite amount of explanations and we can't really know, while also claiming that more data points don't create greater certainty of correlation.
That's contrary to the basis of how science works.