I suspect that what gets lost, because there were thousands of possible analyses, is that it doesn't take thousands of analyses to come up with significant findings.
Simmons et. al. showed small amounts of flexibility have a large effect on the production of significant findings - you only need one extra outcome variable, a plan to perform an additional experimental series (if necessary), one modifier and three conditions (added or dropped, as necessary) in order to boost your production of false positives to over 80%.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...ignificant/links/09e4150f5ccd74c12e000000.pdf
Bem exceeds that minimal degree of flexibility. In precognitive habituation, Bem had three outcomes (mere exposure, habituation and boredom), six conditions, more than five additional experimental series, and at least five modifiers. And nobody batted an eyelash over the multiple analyses that the production of his significant findings would entail, in this case. And this is only considering those analyses he made explicit. We don't even need to consider that he performed any additional analyses, but elected not to mention their results.
You may get more traction if, instead of focussing on just how many potential analyses were available, you focused on how few potential analyses it takes to produce a considerable excess of positive results.
It's interesting to see the second part (where everyone convinces themselves that the 'significant findings' represent the obvious hypothesis all along) play out. The purported psychological effect which Bem intends to test, "mere exposure", would be hypothesized to produce an increased hit rate across the board. This was contradicted by the experimental results. So then we have "habituation" which explains the findings which did not support the "mere exposure" hypothesis. And then when the "habituation" results aren't supported, we have "aversion" and "boredom". If the hypothesis was so obvious, why did Bem explicitly test numerous other hypotheses along the way? Would he really have regarded an increased hit rate in all groups as a failure of his hypothesis?
Linda