Abstract

In our original paper (see record 1999-05017-001), we described a number of potential information leakage pathways in Experiment One (Exp 1) of the Science Applications International Corporation\'s (SAIC) remote viewing program. In this paper, we counter E. C. May\'s assertion that the proposed leakage paths do not account for the observed difference between performance in the static and dynamic target conditions and refute May\'s claim that empirical evidence from the literature indicates that our proposed information pathways cannot be effective. In our earlier paper, we also described May and the SAIC research team\'s repeated and marked difficulties in producing a consistent account of the experiment\'s procedure, which make an assessment of Exp 1 extremely difficult and call into question whether the assessors commissioned to write a US government-sponsored report on the other studies in the SAIC program would have been given accurate inform!ation about their unrecorded details. In his response, May insists that the final account of Exp 1 is the correct reconstruction, but offers no evidence or argument to support this claim and does not address the problems that the situation raises for the government report.