Dean Radin's spoon

The problem is that in effect you're just saying "Never mind about the details, it must have been faked in some way."

Regarding your first suggestion, you don't explain how it would have been possible to bend the bowl of the spoon repeatedly without leaving any sign of it having been done, and you don't explain why - after having been bent repeatedly to make it soft - the bowl of the spoon should suddenly have become rigid again immediately after Radin bent it himself.

Regarding your second suggestion, it seems pretty far-fetched to me. But the really fatal flaw is that you can't suggest what could have been poured into the hypothetical mould that would have behaved in the way that was observed. Previously you suggested gallium, but I did go to the trouble of quoting above what Radin said about the possibility of its being a "trick spoon," and it's not consistent with the idea it was gallium. Apparently you just ignored that.

I do find it notable that both of the sceptics who were successful in this spoon-bending themselves, Shermer and Nickell, suggested a quite different explanation, that was nothing to do with the spoons having been tampered with beforehand.

The problem I have with those two skeptics idea is that it looks odd. Excersiging more strenght than you think you are actually doing is something really possible in hypnosis or with pure believers, who totally don't want to fail and are going to push harder, maybe unwillingly, just to get the result. It doesn't strike me that much possible with true skeptics.

As long as the spoons are provided by the organizers, there is room for fraud. Any supernatural event where there is room for fraud has to be "dissected" into a better, and controlled, environement, otherwise fraud ramains the first explanation as many previous cases have shown.

I honestly don't know if i am debunking, but if the mods prefer we can hop to SvP, it's the same for me

Apart from anything else, I'm not sure anyone who has posted on this thread actually qualifies as a sceptic as defined in the relevant part of the rules, namely, "an individual [who] does not accept the anomalous nature of any of the various phenomena in the Extended Consciousness Phenomena (ECP) forum."

The rules are clear as a bell... no debunking anywhere but SvP

For what it's worth, Max (I'm not getting involved beyond pointing this out), I think you're arguing over two words and their definition.

when an individual does not accept the anomalous nature of any of the various phenomena in the Extended Consciousness Phenomena (ECP) forum, and when the intent is strictly to "debunk", 

Raf does accept NDE's, so that's okay up to now.  

If the above quote from the rules then stated ...or  when the intent is to strictly to debunk …then you would have a point. But it doesn't, it says and when the intent is strictly to debunk >> meaning in tandem with when an individual does not accept the anomalous nature of any of the various phenomena.

So I think the mods are right. Hope that's as clear as mud.

As a NDE proponents (well, mostly, I have my bad days where i doubt but the evidence really seems compelling) and sceptic of almost everything else I think I am a rare beast

But,  I have to say I've found some interesting evidence reading studies on reincarnation and also some bits on mediumship. It's the superpowers that I can't really stand. And this is coming from an avid comicbook reader 

(Note: It's only a few weeks ago where Ninshub stopped Steve001 posting here for 2 days, for this very reason).

Yes but Steve doesn't accept any of the anomalous phenomena. And two days was very lenient