This certainly is an interesting idea. It's worth the attempt. I am
personally doubtful that there is anything substantial to be found in
the spoon bending phenomenon, although I do not by any means rule out
the possibility of human telekenesis. It is indeed true that the term
"implausible" carries a hint of irony when uttered by
Parapsychologists, although like any other field of research
eventually some boundaries are likely to be established, or at least
some average range of capacities determined.

In addition to your own suggestions, I would repeat my earlier calls
for a focus on signal enhancement through improving methods of
filtering "noise" (such as Radin's Weighted Sequential Analysis,
itself a significant improvement on Sequential Analysis), and by
better participant selection and developing training regimens for
gifted participants, and the application of more "naturalistic"
experiments designed to better replicate the conditions under which
Psi might manifest in everyday life, among other approaches.

Your thoughts on this subject are most appreciated Olavi. You are
clearly passionate about this area of research, and it is that kind of
passion that Parapsychologists need to have. On this "Grail Quest" to
understand Psi phenomenon, long period of disappointment and tedious
labors can become disillusioning, and sap researchers of their
enthusiasm and passion, and turn them into the very same soulless
academics that treat them with contempt. It is important to remind
these brave souls, from time to time, that theirs is a magical and
exciting quest for the Truth, and that their greatest power comes from
the human imagination, which does not know the words "implausible" or
"impossible".

--- In PSI_research@yahoogroups.com, "Olavi Kiviniemi" <okivi@...> wrote:
>
> "Main-stream" parapsychology failed to handle properly Uri Geller and
> "mini-Gellers". That was a major drawback to parapsychology, when
> first-class and compelling evidence was ignored and even blankly
denied,
> because it was not "plausible". What is plausible evidence in
> parapsychology? Nothing, say skeptics and mainstream scientists.
>
> Scholars have difficulties in understanding the strength of physical
> evidence because they are not interested in what kind of world we
are living
> in. They are interested in what people think and do.
>
> The loss could perhaps be partly repaired by building a network of best
> possible experts and looking what there is left of the evidence.
Something
> has already been done - there is a vast bibliography concerning Geller
> information:
> http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/uribib.htm .
>
> The international metal-bending network would have at least
following tasks:
>
> -- gather names of all metal-benders in a database, with all possible
> reference
> information (quality level of the experiments, background of the
benders
> etc.)
> -- try to find all test pieces left (most of them have been thrown away)
> -- try to arrange metallurgical research for most interesting pieces
> -- gather and analyze all details of metallurgical observations
which have
> already been done
> -- try to find new benders and arrange new well documented
experiments with
> them ("spoon bending parties" etc.)
> -- keep a public site in Internet to enhance the work (although the
personal
> information is mostly confidential)
>
> I would guess that the network could find at least one thousand
benders. If
> there are enough test-pieces left, very strong evidence can still be
found.
> Some pieces can produce even compelling evidence, when the same
effects are
> impossible to accomplish by normal means. For example, if:
> -- brittle pieces have broken toughly,
> -- tough pieces have broken as if they had been brittle,
> -- only in hands bent pieces have necked,
> -- there are "impossible" microstructures or fracture surfaces in the
> pieces, then there is very strong evidence for paranormality.
>
> - Olavi
>