Obviously if I saw that my conversation with him was leading, I would not have posted this in the first place.

His conversation was completely and obviously leading. I was reading that and thought 'this is incredibly leading, I wonder if that will be part of the punchline where he explains why these results are complete bullshit?' I was very disappointed to then read you say it was not leading.

It seems unlikely to me that he is explicitly lying in some way. I fully expect him to run a biased experiment, but not a rigged one. Most of the fraudsters have something to gain from their lies - either money, or fame. DavidM doesn't make any money off of this (he worked on a movie about "the 5 natural laws of health", but that is a completely different piece of woo than remote viewing and he also to my knowledge has never advertised the movie in association with Nu), and he is addressing an already captive audience. Secondly, if he truly believes remote viewing to be real, why would he run a faked experiment in support of it? Thirdly, for what it's worth, my impression from playing Notpron for a few years is that he basically seems like an honest person.

Again, you're ignoring the long history of fraud by believers. People will lie all the time to defend things they believe in. They will lie for the admiration and entertainment and reinforcement of their in-group. They will fudge to get the 'right' answer. Did you read the references in the SSC post? There was one all about experimenter fraud, featuring examples like a guy who completely made up data showing psi, then began doing elaborate experiments investigating potential hypotheses suggested by his fake data; whatever was going on in his head, it was not what you naively think was going on in everyone's head. Or consider the long and prolific career of Diederik Stapel. Or...

(Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where people operated the way you think they do, where you could just listen to the most extreme fanatics and accept everything they say? 'What's that, you say there's an omnipotent god who will punish me for eternity if I don't believe in him? Well, as a believer, I don't see why you would be mistaken, biased, or lying, and you give me the impression of a basically honest person, and some other people on your forums agree with you and claim to have had divine contact a few times and you say there's even more such people - so duck me in some water and call me a Christian!')

So there should be a 1/100 chance that someone would guess it right on their first try.

1% is a good starting point to amplify with biases, fabrication, leading dialogue, contamination, trolls, social pressure, ingratiation...

Look, his experiment was broken in almost every possible way. (He didn't even change images?! What on earth remote viewing experiment ever used a single fixed target?) It's fine if it's a game, but that's the thing: you don't revise your beliefs based on games! I see dragons all the time in games, but I don't increase my belief in dragons to 'between 50 and 60 percent'.

Traditional skepticism has problems, but one of the things it is good at is debunking things like this. The whole point of why Yvain's post on psi was interesting was that the experiments in question seemed to have avoided all the problems that setups like this plunge into willy-nilly.