> If we present a 0.005 finding your simulated alpha is not actually 0.05 and we cannot write that is
> is multiple comparsion corrected. Right?

Leaving modeling issues aside, I don't think that the current approach of hiding everything below the threshold is healthy. Instead of varying the voxel-wise p-value, I suggest that you fix the voxel-wise p-value (whatever is currently considered acceptable) and find the clusters with varying cluster-level FWE rates (alpha) such as 0.05, 0.06, 0.07, etc. Then you can report those clusters of interest with an alpha value above but still reasonably close to 0.05. Let go of the obsession with the p-value, and don't treat the watermark of 0.05 as something carved in stone.

Gang