Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
other less satisfactory tests,
since
it would have been
in-
correct to present too optimistic
a selection.
In these pre-
sentations,
and to expand the information on J.
P.
Girard,
we
also showed
films of various external origins
and also of
unequal value.
French and foreign illusionists observed cer-
tain presentations.
They helped
to firm our opinion on certain
points.
One of them discovered
a sign of
fakery on
a film
which J.
P.
Girard had obtained for
us without telling
us
that
it had been faked.
The opinions gathered
in the course of all
these discussions helped us
in the critical study of our docu-
ments,
and in various
checks which we have run since.
J.
P.
Girard agreed to some control experiments,
at least one of
which
is very interesting*.
All this was time-consuming,
and
explains the long delay between our first tests and the
ap-
pearance of the present article.
However, we believe that
this
critical study has gone
on long enough,
if not too
long,
and that the time has come
to publish the most typical
of our
experiences.
The selection which we present therefore
is
the result of
prolonged screening work.
Of
150
test specimens which J.
P.
Girard deformed or transformed before
us
or our colleagues,
there are only twenty or
so
for which we might be able posi-
tively
to affirm the
"abnormal"
character of the observed
effects.
In
the
course
of this
article,
we describe eight of
these most typical cases.
However,
we must point out that,
among the tests eliminated,
the majority were certainly valid,
* Test No.
of Table
II.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RQP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
w
but we rejected
any demonstrations which did not follow
a pre-
determined mode of operation.
Thus our screening process was
tbo severe.
Other tests with extensometers will be published
later.
Our concern
for rigor thus eliminated quite remarkable
observations
on deformations
at
a distance,
deformations
of
objects or test specimens
in the very hands
of observers of
undoubted integrity,
or
of objects held in turn by J.
P.
Girard and by
an observer.
The tests which we are about to describe
were performed
under our personal responsibility, with the authorization of
Pechiney-Ugine-Kuhlmann .
We wish to thank those colleagues
who assisted
us
in the tricky study of this controversial
fjield,
particularly
J.
Rauch,
G. Jollant
and B.
Dubost.
We
also wish to express our appreciation to Professor J.
B.
Hasted,
professor of physics
at Birkbeck College of London
University,
for kindly having sponsored
a test in his
laboratory
DESCRIPTION OF THE TESTS
bending of metal
test specimens
So that J.
P.
Girard could not surreptitiously bend
a
test specimen, we often used
fairly thick bars of various
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-0(l787R0005001 60001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
metals,
particularly aluminum and light alloys
(bars
250
to
350 mm long and
to
17 mm thick)
,
but also copper,
mild steel
stainless steel and magnesium.
We determined the
forces
(bending moments)
necessary to bend our specimens by measure-
ments
and calculations.
To be
able to compare the values
of
resistance
of the specimens
to the forces
to which they could
have been subjected
if
fakery involving surreptitious bending
had been used, we determined the maximum moment that
a man can
develop by grasping a bar in both hands
and exerting all his
force... which does not go unnoticed.
For this we used
a
dynamometric wrench with handles,
400 mm long, which we had
numerous persons
try.
Depending on the individual,
the maxi-
mum moments varied from 20 to
38 N.m.
The median was around
25 N.m.
J.
P.
Girard developed
26 N.m with
a very visible
effort.
These values were confirmed by direct tests on the
bars.
We shall dxscuss one such example below
(session
of
October
27,
1976)
.
It
is out of the question to describe
all these
tests
here,
or
to present a critical
review.
For this article,
we
have chosen the two most typical tests:
Session
of March
31,
1976,
at the Centre Technique de
1’ Aluminium.
Investigators
:
J.
Rauch and G.
Jollant, with an assistant for video recording
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
I
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
During this
session,
in a room close to that in which
jj.
P.
Girard was waiting,
G. Jollant took
a bar
of duralumin
hardened to AU4G alloy of
state T4
(quenched, matured)
.
The.
bar was
250 mm long and
8 mm in diameter.
Its
fairly high
critical bending moment
(15 N-m)
ruled out the possibility
tjhat it could be bent without visible effort.
G.
Jollant
rolled it on
a table,
confirmed that it did not have
any
roundness defects, marked it and placed it in
a glass
tube
Which he sealed with
a stopper.
This
is
the only time that
We were able
to arrange that
J.
P.
Girard did not touch
a
bending- test specimen before
it was enclosed
in
a
tube.
G.
Jollant carried the closed tube to
J.
Rauch, who gave
it immediately to
J.
P.
Girard.
From this moment,
everything
^as
filmed.
The stopper,
or the bar in the tube,
or both,
were always visible.
After having concentrated and having
declared that he
felt something,
J.
P.
Girard returned the
tube,
still closed,
- to J.
Rauch.
J.
Rauch opened the tube,
rjemoved the bar — which was visibly bent — and placed
it on
the table
and then on
a
flat bar,
so
as
to highlight the de-
flection, which was
thus made very visible.
This deflection
was
2 mm.
Sjession
of October
27,
1976,
at Grenoble.
investigators :
J.
Bouvaist
and
B.
Dubost.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
Here we describe the test performed on the
largest bar.
This was
a bar of
17 mm diameter and
300 mm length, consisting
of AU2 alloy
(with 2.05%
Cu)
in the T4
state
(quenched in cold
water and matured for one year)
.
This bar had been provided
with marks engraved
in, the body.
The positions
of small
characteristic defects had been observed.
It had been trans-
ported to the experimental
station in
a vehicle other than
that which brought
J.
P.
Girard,
and
it was the only one of
its kind in the experimental
lot.
This bar had previously been subjected to bending tests
by very strong men,
and only one 300-pound individual had
been able to produce
a small but significant deformation of
this bar,
after coating his hands with magnesia
(deflection
of 0.6 mm,
corresponding
to an applied moment of
38 N-m).
The bending plane had then been marked by scratches at the two
ends.
Later tests had permitted us to verify that
an average
man could not increase this
deformation,
even by using
a
support at the center of the bar
and bringing his entire weight
(140 pounds)
to bear on
the; two ends.
During
the
test,
the
two investigators were seated on
opposite
sides
of
J.
P.
Girard,
approximately three feet from
him.
J.
P.
Girard worked in shirt sleeves, with the sleeves
rolled
up and unbuttoned.
He produced
four deformations
of
this bar in succession,
by holding one end in his right hand
and gently stroking
the free part with his
left hand
(defor-
mations
(1
and
2),
or by holding his
left hand
5 cm above
the
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
investigators
(C.
Crussard,
J.
Rauch and G.
Jollant)
and four
ofther spectators.
These specimens had been obtained from a
casting of austenitic stainless
steel of special,
non-
cpmmercial composition, which had previously been used in
a
study of martensitic transformation by deformation.
This
casting contained essentially:
Cr = 17.8%,
Ni =
7.4%, Mn =
lj. 56%
,
Si
= 0.36%,
C
=
0.050%,
N =
0.034%.
Two test specimens remaining from this study were used
for our purposes.
They were cylindrical bodies
(diameter
mm and length
85 mm)
with smooth
hea.ds of
12 mm diameter.
Tjhese specimens had been subjected
to quenching in air at
1050°C
(1 hr in salt bath)
,
finish machining and nitrofluoric
attack,
giving the body of
the specimen a satiny appearance.
The resulting structure
is amagnetic,
except
for some parts
of the surface
layer of machining.
The martensitic transfor-
mation points
in this state are:
Ms
= -40°C and Md
= +90 °C.
These specimens had been entrusted to J.
P.
Girard
for
aj few days.
At the start of the session,
they were marked
v^ith an electric pencil with large figures.
Nos.
and
3,
sur-
rounded by
an irregular circle.
Another specimen, marked No.
in the same way, was used
for another non-significant test,
hnd will be used again later for
a simulation control experi-
ment.
Its mark can be seen
in Figure
5.
This was the first
tjime with
J.
P.
Girard that we used specimens of this type
and
marked them in this manner.
It was these specimens marked
in
this way that were recollected
at the end of
the
test under
Conditions which we shall
see:
there was no possibility
of
substitution
.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP963CB787R0005001 60001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
After marking,
one
of us
(C
.
Crussard)
verified
the
straightness of these
specimens Nos.
• and
3 by rolling them.
There was no
"out-of- round"
.
He also verified their magnetic
state.
For this purpose,
a rapid and simple method of evalu-
ating the magnetization from point to point consists
in using
a small,
powerful horseshoe magnet
of Ticonal
(pole areas
7x4 mm
,
spacing
8.5
mm)
suspended
at the end of
a small
chain.
To perform the measurement,
we start from a position
in which the magnet
is
in contact with the specimen and the
suspension
is vertical.
We then pull the specimen away until
the magnet detaches.
By measuring
the horizontal distance
from the magnet to the specimen at this point D,
and knowing
the weight of the magnet
(22
g)
and the length of the suspen-
sion,
we can calculate the force
F of separation.
During this
verification, which was performed on the center of the two
specimens
and on the heads,
the distance
D defined above did
not exceed
to
3 mm,
which corresponds
to
forces
F of separa-
tion on the order of
0.01
N.
These forces were due
to
some
traces
of surface martensite produced by machining.
After this verification,
the specimens were placed on the
table behind which
J.
P.
Girard was operating
(with rolled-up
shirt sleeves)
in the
field of the video camera, which kept
them in view constantly
(while
J.
P.
Girard disposed of other
specimens
and made
an attempt on
a bar of light alloy, without
leaving his
seat)
until
the moment when
the following experi-
ments
commenced:
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
(a)
J.
P.
Girard took specimen No.
2 lightly by one head
and, without exerting any
force
(the film confirms
this)
,
placed it in
a tube,
closed the
tube with
a stopper
(always
in
f|ront of the camera)
,
took the
closed
tube
full
in the hand
(left hand,
the stopper always being visible),
and concentrated.
H;e then gave the tube
to
C.
Crussard
and,
from this moment on,
no longer touched the specimen.
C.
Crussard removed the specimen
from the tube:
it had a
slight but distinct deformation close
to one end.
The deforma-
tion was visible
to the
eye,
and was verified by rolling the
specimen.
A check with the magnet revealed strong local mag-
netism close to this
same end
(see Table
I)
.
Since the entire
Operation had been
filmed,
there was no possibility
of
sub-
stitution.
C.
Crussard replaced the specimen in
its box for
subsequent study.
(b)
J.
P.
Girard picked up specimen No.
3,
which had
Always remained
in view.
The operations were the same
as
for
n|o.
2,
except that
a spectator obstructed the camera
for a
moment.
After J.
P.
Girard had concentrated,
C.
Crussard
Retrieved the closed tube,
removed the specimen and rolled the
specimen.
This remained straight, although it exhibited
local
njagnetism similar to that of specimen No.
2,
this
time without
deformation.
It was
also replaced
in
its box
for further
Study.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
Preliminary
me_a^jirenien_ts
The next day,
C. Crussard evaluated the magnetism and the
deformations.
The
same magnet was always used for the mag-
netism.
The separation forces
F defined above
are indicated
in Table
I
(to within ca.
0.01
N)
..
For the deformations
Y,
one
of the ends was applied against
a straight-edge and the
distance between the other end
(inner
side)
and the straight-
edge was measured.
At the start of the test,
it was verified
that the specimens
"turned round".
Figure
3 very clearly reveals the deformation close
to
one head.
TABLE
I
Measurement
Specimen
No.
Specimen
No.
Deflection from one
side yl
(mm)
2.5
<
0.3
Deflection from the other side y2
1.7
<
0.3
Average deflection y
= ——*
2.1
<
0.3
Separation force
F of the magnet
(N)
:
- one head
0.12*
0.03
- one end of the cylindrical body
0.15
^ 0.22
- center
0.02
0.03
- other end of
the cylindrical body
0.02
0.02
- other head
0.05
0.01
* Maximum value.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1
'
'*,7*
j
:r
»
'i v
•
’ %*•
V-
* ?
fig.
Photograph of stainless
steel
specimen No.
2,
after the
experiment
.
Liafcoratory examinations
Various examinations
(which,
moreover, were destructive)
were performed on specimen No.
2.
The bar was sawed electro-
ly tically close
to the magnetic head.
We were thus able to
jjntroduce
the magnetic end of the cylindrical part of the bar
into the
coil
of
a Sigmatest apparatus:
the specific magnet-
ization at saturation was
2.8,
corresponding to a proportion
of
1.9% magnetic phase
(a
1 ).
j
For specimen No.
3,
a non-destructive study with x-rays
revealed
a'
and
e martensites,
the
latter
in high proportion,
in addition to austenite
in the magnetic
zone.
Photomicrographs
(specimen No.
2)
on the surface polished
mechanically and then electro lytically
(Figures
4a and
4b)
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0005001 60001-1