Gazette des Mousquetaires - No 66 - La piste du fer

Magazine Overview

Title: La Gazette des Mousquetaires de l'Ufo
Issue: 66
Date: February 7, 2019
Theme: The 'Iron Trail' hypothesis, exploring the connection between UFO phenomena and iron.

I - Au sujet de cette publication

This section, written by Guy Coatanroc'h, reflects on the often confrontational nature of discussions within the UFO community. It contrasts this with the respectful and cordial exchanges that followed the publication of an article on the 'Iron Trail' hypothesis. The editor emphasizes the magazine's commitment to publishing diverse information and perspectives, even if not fully endorsing every detail, with the ultimate goal of leading readers towards the truth. The publication welcomes contributions from various fields, including the paranormal, contactees, and abductees, viewing 'Bizarre Phenomena' as potentially linked to human nature and the universe.

II - La Piste du Fer

This section details exchanges following a conference by Luc Cotté on December 4, 2018, concerning his 'Iron Trail' hypothesis.

Jean Marc Gillot to Luc Cotté

Gillot shares information from Jacques Scornaux of SCEAU regarding mining zones extending into the Belgian Luxembourg province. He mentions two sightings near Athus, Belgium: a luminous cigar-shaped object on April 16, 1964, and a black triangle on January 21, 1992. Gillot notes that Cotté's research continues, focusing on magnetic field perturbations as indicators of magnetic iron deposits, particularly in Brazil, specifically Bahia, where the Brucutu iron mine is located and a high UFO presence is reported. Cotté is seeking enigmatic cases from this region. Gillot also mentions the Prato operation on Colares Island and the Varginha incidents but has not yet found a direct link to the iron theory.

Luc Cotté to Jean Marc Gillot

Cotté acknowledges the information and states his research is ongoing. He is investigating magnetic field perturbations in Brazil, particularly in Bahia, where he notes a significant UFO presence. He is searching for enigmatic cases in this region but hasn't found a direct link to the iron theory yet, though he mentions the Prato operation and Varginha incidents.

Hypothesis: Crypto-delirious...

Jean Marc Gillot proposes a 'crypto-delirious' hypothesis, inspired by Cotté's conference and a planned one by Eric Zurcher. He entertains the idea that UFOs might be living creatures. He draws a parallel with a video showing a fish drawing a 'submarine crop circle' and suggests that other species might also engage in such behaviors, possibly as a form of migration.

Page 3: Discussion on the Nature of UFOs and the 'Iron Trail' Hypothesis

This section delves deeper into the 'living creature' hypothesis for UFOs. It discusses their potential movements (zig-zag, falling leaf), which are sometimes compared to insects or birds, and suggests these movements might be influenced by the Earth's magnetic field. The size of these entities is noted as variable. The idea of animal mutilation being linked to this phenomenon is considered but dismissed. The article explores the possibility that these creatures consume iron, drawing a parallel with microorganisms detected on the International Space Station that attack metal and polymers. It questions whether these entities are extraterrestrial (H.E.T.) or terrestrial, suggesting they might be projections or mental images. The hypothesis posits that these creatures might change shape and luminosity for camouflage, similar to chameleons or bioluminescent marine life. Their constitution is speculated to be linked to bio-electromagnetism, potentially causing hallucinations in witnesses. The theory suggests these beings might be intrinsically linked to Earth and unable to travel in space for extended periods. Their behavior might include attempts to conceal themselves or 'play' with humans. They are thought to fear storms and avoid water, though some sightings involve UFOs emerging from or diving into the sea. The author, Luc Cotté, concludes this part by suggesting that humans tend to anthropomorphize phenomena and that the humanoid form might not be accurate.

Page 4: Scientific Models and the 'Iron Trail'

Luc Cotté outlines a scientific model for developing theories: 1) Hypothesis, 2) Verification with evidence, and 3) Prediction of future events. He states that the 'Iron Trail' hypothesis is missing the third part but expects it to emerge. He critiques other theories for not presenting hypotheses but rather attempting to reconcile facts, citing the example of ETs supposedly spying on military installations, which leads to searching for surveillance satellites rather than acknowledging a 'presence in fanfare.' Cotté believes that certain civilizations are watching over humanity and intervening, possibly manifesting as divine interventions. He suggests these civilizations are far more advanced than humans, placing humanity at the third level out of twelve.

Jean Marc Gillot shares a blog link related to Nazca. Cotté confirms he knows the blog and cites it as further evidence for his theory, having integrated Nazca and Atacama into his research in 2011. He notes that the blog, while sympathetic, sometimes veers into explanations that are more detrimental than helpful, mentioning 'photosensitive minerals' and 'aerial markers.'

Gilles Munch expresses skepticism, noting that many globalizing hypotheses in ufology have been progressively discredited. He believes that revisiting similar speculative hypotheses is a mistake and leads to endless discussion rather than progress. He criticizes the 'Iron Trail' hypothesis, particularly its connection to crop circles, which he finds unconvincing. He suggests that the presumed visitors' need for iron is not a convincing explanation for crop circle formation.

Page 5: Critiques of Hypotheses and Scientific Rigor

Gilles Munsch continues his critique, emphasizing the need for concrete, established elements to form a hypothesis, followed by experimental protocols. He finds many UFO hypotheses lacking in both concrete evidence and experimental validation, reducing them to mere discussion. He advocates for characterizing phenomena by first eliminating rational explanations and then isolating specific characteristics. This requires serious investigation, expert analysis, and the creation of databases. Munsch questions the number of active ufologists conducting in-depth investigations and analyses. He believes that most current hypotheses are based on vague impressions, unproven correlations, and pure science fiction, closer to magical thinking than scientific thought. He suggests that discovering the solution to these mysteries is unlikely in the short to medium term and advocates for diligent, modest, and collaborative work.

Munsch then addresses the 'Iron Trail' hypothesis directly, suggesting it might follow the same path as previous theories unless its proponents provide precise, falsifiable parameters and work to validate them. He offers a 'cooling' reflection: if extraterrestrials (ETs) need iron, why extract it from low-grade terrestrial ores when richer deposits exist, or why not extract it directly during mining? He questions why they would extract it from Earth at all if they could obtain it elsewhere. He also raises the possibility of them mastering nuclear fusion to produce iron, questioning the need for iron-based propulsion if they can achieve this.

Page 6: Further Critiques and Alternative Sources of Iron

Munsch continues his critique of the 'Iron Trail' hypothesis, questioning the logic of ETs extracting iron from relatively poor terrestrial ores when richer sources might exist. He proposes simpler alternatives: why not take large iron structures like battleships or the Eiffel Tower? He also points out that meteorites, particularly siderites, are rich in iron and often found near the surface, detectable with simple metal detectors. He suggests that the asteroid belt and interplanetary space are vast sources of iron, offering complete discretion. He questions why ETs would need to come to Earth for iron if they have similar resources near their own planets, unless it's for in-situ production. He also raises the question of residues from iron-based propulsion systems and whether ETs capable of advanced technology could produce iron through nuclear fusion, questioning the necessity of iron propulsion altogether. Munsch concludes that the 'Iron Trail' hypothesis, while superficially attractive, raises more questions than answers and that progress requires establishing proven facts before formulating hypotheses.

Page 7: Discussion on GEIPAN, Scientific Limitations, and Personal Experiences

Jean Marc Gillot responds to Gilles Munsch, defending Luc Cotté and the 'Iron Trail' hypothesis. He acknowledges that Cotté was an investigator for GEIPAN (now GEIPAN-SEPRA-GEIPAN) and that his statements about GEIPAN seem accurate. Gillot argues that scientific protocols also have limitations, citing examples of scientific certainty that proved wrong (e.g., Chernobyl fallout, dietary advice). He describes Cotté as a correct and modest individual who doesn't claim to have all the answers. Gillot questions why ufologists should adhere to scientific methods if science itself doesn't investigate UFO phenomena. He suggests that initial interest in UFOs often stems from a belief in extraterrestrial visitation and questions Munsch's own initial motivations. He also touches upon the potential for extraterrestrial contamination, even a simple cold, from visitors, questioning the absence of microbes. Gillot concludes by stating that if Cotté's hypothesis is wrong, it doesn't matter, as freedom of thought is paramount.

Guy Coatanroch shifts the focus to the biological aspect of iron, explaining hemoglobin, anemia, and iron deficiency. He details hemochromatosis, a genetic disorder causing excessive iron absorption, and mentions he has this condition. He notes that this condition has been part of his life since childhood, accompanied by 'bizarre phenomena' that he considers natural. He wonders if ETs might be interested in iron for biological reasons, possibly through abductions, though he doesn't believe he is a target.

Page 8: Further Debate on the 'Iron Trail' and Research Methods

Luc Cotté responds to Guy Coatanroch, stating that his hypothesis is not about selling books or harming anyone but about sharing a strong personal conviction. He explains that his book is aimed at a general audience and provides an 'overview' of the subject. He clarifies that he is not challenging the quality of the VECA report but rather its interpretation, which might suggest that crop circles are solely human constructions. He criticizes GEIPAN's current approach, which he sees as contradictory, admitting mystery while publishing information that refutes it. Cotté believes there is room for all perspectives and that the public should be able to form their own opinions. He mentions that the British government's official inquiry into crop circles concluded that not all were human-made, leaning towards an atmospheric vortex hypothesis. Cotté acknowledges that his book is based on an older opinion and that his view of the ufological community has become more critical. He expresses pride in being part of a group working to understand phenomena and agrees with the need for community reflection.

Cotté apologizes if he offended Munsch, stating he had tried to expunge the version. He finds Munsch's emails rich and lengthy, requiring significant time to respond. He mentions that his future conferences will not focus on the VECA report or Munsch but will include the 'cursed triangles' and animal mutilation dossiers, indicating his theory is evolving.

Gilles Munsch, in his New Year's greeting, addresses the 'Iron Trail' hypothesis, which he finds initially attractive but requires tempering enthusiasm until satisfactory answers are obtained. He notes that many subsequent emails have deviated from this topic. He recalls a discussion with Jean-Marc about the VECA report, learning that crop circles were linked to the 'Iron Trail,' which he found unconvincing. He states that the idea of crop circles being a manifestation of visitors' need for iron does not reassure him, given his views on crop circles. He admits he could be wrong and that the future will tell.

Page 9: Critique of Cotté's Analysis of the VECA Report

Munsch continues his critique, stating that he received a chapter from Luc Cotté's book concerning crop circles and the VECA report. He notes that Cotté's analysis of the VECA report was negative, which did not surprise him. Munsch, having worked on the VECA report for 25 years, states he has never been approached by Cotté for evaluation. He suspects Cotté's discourse might be based on convictions rather than factual precision. Munsch questions how one can speak about something one does not know. He concludes that his initial feeling that Cotté's analysis would lack factual precision was correct. Munsch invites those interested to judge who provides more verifiable elements: himself (and the VECA team) or Cotté. He has addressed Cotté's points individually, offering a different perspective based on VECA's work and his own experience. He frames his remarks as a 'right of reply' to criticisms and a counterweight to approximate arguments or partisan allegations. He provides a link to a Wetransfer download for his detailed response.

Munsch also comments on the GEIPAN-SEPRA-GEIPAN. He poses four questions to Cotté: 1) Can Cotté cite a text where he claims skepticism? 2) Can Cotté cite a text where he explains his theses on UFOs? 3) Can Cotté cite a case where his investigative work has been demonstrated to lead to a conclusion contrary to the reported facts? 4) Is Cotté willing to confront his expertise with Munsch's in real-time on one or more crop circles? Munsch states that these questions are to temper enthusiasm and await satisfactory answers. He believes Cotté should focus on finding evidence rather than making assumptions and criticisms. He concludes that if Cotté supports his theory with the same rigor he uses to criticize VECA and GEIPAN, it might be a good idea, but otherwise, it will remain just an idea.

Page 10: Responses and Ongoing Research

Luc Cotté responds to Gilles Munsch, stating that he has no problem with Munsch's response but finds it regrettable that some people take refuge in a "if I were an ET" scenario. He asserts that our knowledge of these subjects is extremely limited. Cotté explains that his approach is driven by facts, not personal aspirations, and that he believes he has provided significant evidence for the 'Iron Trail' hypothesis. He compares his work to assembling a puzzle and suggests that theories about gold are illogical. He addresses the common objection: 'Why search for iron here and not elsewhere?' He notes that his 'Iron Trail' dossier has generated YouTube videos and comments, with the same objection repeated. Cotté emphasizes that he is still working on the subject and discovering new aspects, inviting other ufologists to join the research. He questions whether it is specifically magnetic iron or some hidden element. He feels he has been 'pushed' into this research and wants to understand what is happening, playing his role in the scenario. He agrees to the exchange of correspondence as long as it remains reasonable and avoids 'slipping' into belief or systematic demolition.

Gilles Munsch offers New Year's wishes for 2019, hoping for good news in their field. He provides a brief clarification regarding his previous comments. He states that he has no opinion on the UFO phenomenon itself and suggests that Cotté should verify his assumptions about Munsch's stance. Munsch believes that polemics have always plagued ufology and that Cotté's writings fuel them. He questions Cotté's objective: to sell books or advance UFO knowledge.

Luc Cotté responds to Munsch, stating his intention is not to sell books or cause harm but to share a strong hypothesis. He explains his book is for a general audience and provides an overview. He respects the VECA report but questions its interpretation regarding crop circles. He criticizes GEIPAN's current stance. Cotté believes there should be room for all perspectives. He mentions the British government's conclusion that not all crop circles are human-made. He acknowledges his book reflects his past opinion and that his view of ufology has evolved. He expresses pride in the ufological community and the shared goal of understanding. He agrees with the need for community reflection. Cotté apologizes for any offense and states that Munsch's emails are rich and require time to answer. He mentions his upcoming conferences will not focus on VECA or Munsch but will include 'cursed triangles' and animal mutilation dossiers, indicating his theory is evolving.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently explores unconventional hypotheses related to UFO phenomena, with a particular focus on the 'Iron Trail' theory in this issue. There is a clear tension between those advocating for rigorous scientific methodology (like Gilles Munsch) and those who prioritize exploring speculative hypotheses and gathering diverse anecdotal evidence (like Luc Cotté). The editorial stance appears to be one of open inquiry, encouraging discussion and the sharing of information, even if it challenges conventional scientific paradigms. The magazine provides a platform for debate, allowing different viewpoints to be presented and discussed within the ufological community.

Title: La Gazette des Mousquetaires de l'Ufo
Issue Date: February 7, 2019
Content Focus: This issue delves into a debate concerning the "iron piste" theory in ufology, exploring the potential interest of UFOs in ancient iron extraction sites. It features an exchange of views between correspondents Luc Cotté and Gilles Munsch, alongside discussions on scientific methodology, case classification, and the role of official organizations.

The "Iron Piste" Theory and its Critics

Luc Cotté introduces the concept of UFOs scanning and overflying "ancient sites," specifically focusing on locations related to iron exploitation. He initially proposed an explanation involving surface iron recovery but revises it to include "Résidus" (residues) from "Bas fourneaux" (bloomery furnaces), which are richer in iron than raw ore. Cotté references a Wikipedia extract detailing "ferriers" (iron smelting sites) as evidence of extensive human activity in iron processing, particularly from the Iron Age through the Roman occupation. He suggests that these sites, some spanning considerable areas, are primary targets for extraterrestrial interest.

Gilles Munsch responds with a more cautious and critical perspective. While acknowledging Cotté's direct and rapid reply, Munsch notes a more prudent tone compared to Cotté's book. Munsch expresses concern that Cotté's theory, while potentially interesting, is presented with a lack of rigor, leading to the amalgamation of disparate phenomena like luminous events, Crop Circles, and trace interpretations into a single explanation. He argues that correlations, even if strong, do not constitute proof and that Cotté's approach risks turning a hypothesis into an unproven "discovery."

Munsch further critiques the rapid application of Cotté's theory to various UFO phenomena, including Rendlesham, Amarante, and Crop Circles, suggesting it might be "too magical." He advocates for a more methodical approach, suggesting Cotté document and present one aspect of the theory at a time for community review.

Discussion on Scientific Method and Ufology

The exchange extends to the broader methodology of ufology and the role of scientific institutions. Cotté defends the GEIPAN (French official UFO investigation group), describing its members as respectable and its work as progressing despite limited resources and the inherent complexities of the subject. He argues against the idea that private ufology groups could resolve the enigma alone and suggests collaboration with GEIPAN rather than criticism.

Munsch, however, expresses a deep-seated distrust of the "scientific milieu," attributing technological advancements more to "francs-tireurs" (mavericks) outside the traditional academic system. He contrasts this with the perceived limitations and potential biases within official scientific bodies. He also criticizes the GEIPAN's classification system (A, B, C, D1, D2) as imperfect and potentially misleading, suggesting that many cases classified as "unexplained" could be resolved with more thorough investigation.

Cotté counters that while the scientific world is not perfect, its method is the most fruitful for progress. He defends the GEIPAN's classification system as a tool that provides a reasonable assessment of cases at a given time, acknowledging its limitations and the need for potential reclassification as new information emerges. He criticizes private ufologists for often classifying cases as unexplained without adequate investigation.

Specific Case Discussions

The debate touches upon specific cases:

• NT8 (Note Technique 8): Cotté uses this case, involving a spiral trace, to illustrate his theory of ET craft taking off, linking it to Crop Circle spirals. Munsch disputes this, stating that Crop Circle spirals are human-made and that the central "tufts" are not spirals.
• Amarante: Munsch clarifies he does not have a negative opinion of the Amarante case itself but questions the idealized vision some ufologists have of it. He notes that he has shared his observations with GEIPAN and believes there are unresolved issues.
• Trans-en-Provence: Munsch states he has visited the site and participated in collective reflection on the case, but ultimately defers to GEIPAN's assessment.
• Crop Circles: Munsch argues that the VECA report offers a plausible human-made explanation for Crop Circles, challenging proponents of an extraterrestrial origin to provide similar verifiable models.
• Hessdalen and Rendlesham: Munsch points out discrepancies, such as the absence of triangles in Hessdalen reports, contrasting with the Belgian and Hudson waves. He also notes that Rendlesham is a case subject to caution and that Hessdalen is not clearly linked to extraterrestrial hypotheses.

Methodological Concerns and Conspiracies

Munsch reiterates his concern about the "lightness" with which Cotté amalgamates distinct phenomena. He advises against focusing solely on supporting evidence and ignoring contradictory data, comparing it to seeing only grey cats and concluding all cats are grey. He also expresses reservations about engaging in discussions about conspiracy theories like Area 51, preferring to stick to subjects he has direct knowledge of.

Cotté, in response to Munsch's critique of the scientific milieu, defends its collaborative nature and its role in advancing knowledge. He dismisses the idea that "francs-tireurs" are solely responsible for technological progress, highlighting the contributions of Nobel laureates and scientists from formal education. He also refutes the anecdote about Newton discovering gravity from a falling apple, emphasizing the importance of rigorous scientific inquiry over simplistic narratives.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue highlights a fundamental tension between a speculative, hypothesis-driven approach to ufology (represented by Cotté's "iron piste" theory) and a more evidence-based, methodologically rigorous stance (advocated by Munsch). The debate underscores the challenges of establishing proof in a field often characterized by anecdotal evidence and subjective interpretations. The magazine appears to provide a platform for these diverse viewpoints, encouraging critical thinking and a cautious approach to extraordinary claims, while also acknowledging the potential for genuine discoveries through persistent investigation. The overall tone suggests a commitment to open debate, even when disagreements are sharp, emphasizing the need for factual justification and intellectual honesty.

This document is an excerpt from "La Gazette des Mousquetaires de l'Ufo", issue 21/32, dated 07/02/2019. It features a lengthy open letter from Gilles Munsch to M. Luc Cotté, responding to chapter 4 of Cotté's book "OVNIS La piste du fer", which is titled "L'énigme résolue de l'origine des Crops-circles". Munsch aims to provide factual elements to address what he sees as shortcomings in Cotté's text, focusing on the phenomenon of crop circles and their potential connection to UFOs.

Detailed Response to Luc Cotté's Chapter

Munsch meticulously addresses points raised by Cotté, often quoting passages (in blue) and then offering his counter-arguments. He begins by refuting the idea that crop circles originated in the Middle Ages with demonic attribution, suggesting an error in translation where 'fauchée' (mown) was mistaken for 'couchée' (flattened).

The Nature and Origin of Crop Circles

Cotté's assertion that crop circles are not a threat, not made by humans, and that hypotheses like plasma vortices or unknown meteorological phenomena are most probable, is challenged. Munsch explains that the British authorities' 1990 conclusion referred to Dr. Terence Meaden's vortex theory, which later evolved to plasma vortices. Meaden, a meteorologist, eventually withdrew from the field as his theories became untenable, especially with the advent of pictograms in 1990. Munsch clarifies that the authorities' statement that crop circles were not human-made did not automatically imply extraterrestrial origin, but rather a natural one.

UFOs as Misperceptions and Crop Circles as Hoaxes

Munsch disputes Cotté's claim that UFOs are mostly misperceptions and crop circles are made by hoaxers. He argues that while a fleeting phenomenon might be misperceived, a crop circle observed up close is unambiguous. He states that if the natural origin is excluded and human origin is also questioned, then an exotic or extraterrestrial origin is considered, though not yet proven.

The Problem of Unclaimed and Complex Crop Circles

Cotté highlights that some crop circles are not claimed and their complexity suggests they are incompatible with human means. Munsch counters that crop circles were not claimed before the revelations of Doug & Dave. He notes that pictograms often had recurring details interpreted as signatures, such as two small semi-circles, which he and his colleagues observed in 1990, predating D&D's revelations. He also mentions the letter 'a' (alpha) as a possible signature. Munsch dismisses the idea that un-claimed crop circles are inherently incompatible with human means, calling it a gratuitous affirmation. He cites an example of VECA organizing the creation of a complex crop circle in Verdes, France, in under two hours by a TV special effects artist and an assistant, demonstrating human capability.

The VECA Group and its Methodology

Munsch defends the VECA group's work, stating that their reports are not about creating an impression of exhaustiveness but about providing clear, concise, and verifiable principles for analysis. He clarifies that the VECA report, which he helped compile, reflects the collective work of a group, not just his own. He challenges Cotté to provide evidence for his claims that Munsch promotes "scientific skepticism" or has theses grouped under that banner, asserting that he has never proposed a globalizing explanation and has focused on methodological tools and case studies, including identifying misperceptions.

Munsch also addresses Cotté's view on science, stating that while science requires seeking meaning and developing theories, it must first involve hypotheses, experimentation, and data collection, without forcing data to fit pre-established results. He rejects the comparison of science to religion, emphasizing science's basis in reasoning.

Critiques of Cotté's Arguments and the "Iron Trail" Hypothesis

Munsch criticizes Cotté's assertion that VECA's reports are thick to create an illusion of exhaustiveness, arguing that Cotté's own book likely has a similar volume. He also dismisses Cotté's judgment of a dossier based on its thickness as superficial.

He defends VECA's "principles" (visibility, limitation, optimism) as easy-to-integrate tools for clear analysis, stating they have not been disproven in 25 years. He refutes Cotté's implication that VECA's discovery of human origin for crop circles was a mere coincidence, explaining that VECA visited dozens of crop circles in 1989 and 1990, and only later, towards the end of 1990, did they identify them as almost certainly human-made, a conclusion they later extended to earlier cases. Munsch states he has visited around 150 crop circles and found none that, in his reasoned opinion, were not human-made.

Munsch also challenges Cotté's view on the "iron trail" hypothesis, which suggests crop circles are related to extraterrestrial iron retrieval. He questions why aliens would seek iron from cereal fields when they could access richer sources, and why they would need to harvest from fields if they have advanced technology that negates iron deficiency during long space voyages. He suggests that Cotté might be inferring a motive for animal mutilations from the iron hypothesis, but notes that such mutilations are not reported in poultry, which also have iron-rich organs.

The GEIPAN and Research Methodology

Munsch expresses frustration with Cotté's selective use of GEIPAN's work, praising it when it aligns with his views and dismissing it as "a tissue of nonsense" when it does not. He points out that Cotté incorrectly identifies Velasco as the head of GEIPAN when he was responsible for SEPRA.

Munsch also critiques the BLT Research Team, questioning how three individuals could analyze thousands of formations across continents, and hints at dissensions and accusations of fraud within the group. He contrasts this with VECA's transparent and freely available research.

Electromagnetic Effects and Plant Dehydration

Munsch expresses skepticism about claims of electromagnetic effects in crop circles, stating that despite extensive fieldwork over 29 years in various countries, he and his colleagues have never encountered such problems. He recounts experiences of using equipment in crop circles without issue, even in adverse conditions.

Regarding plant dehydration, Munsch suggests that it could be a natural consequence of trauma to plants over time, rather than direct evidence of UFO activity. He argues that the delay between observation and sampling in cases like Trans-en-Provence (40 days) could account for plant desiccation.

The "Spiral" Phenomenon and Other Critiques

Munsch questions the interpretation of a "spiral" in the center of some crop circles, suggesting it's more of a tangled mass of stalks. He also notes that crop circle formations have shifted from clockwise to counter-clockwise patterns over time, which he sees as a feedback principle rather than evidence of a specific ET technology.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The central theme is a debate on the methodology and conclusions regarding crop circles and UFOs, pitting a skeptical, evidence-based approach (represented by Munsch and VECA) against what Munsch perceives as speculative and unproven theories (attributed to Cotté). The editorial stance, as expressed through Munsch's letter, is one of rigorous investigation, critical analysis, and a demand for verifiable proof, while acknowledging the legitimacy of posing questions and exploring hypotheses. The article also touches upon the commercialization of ufology and the challenges of scientific research in the face of public belief and skepticism.

This issue of "La Gazette des Mousquetaires de l'Ufo" (dated 07/02/2019, pages 31/32) critically analyzes a UFO sighting and associated crop circle phenomena, primarily focusing on the explanations provided by ufologist Mr. Cotté. The magazine aims to present information in an agreeable and sincere manner, rather than seeking to please.

Critique of Mr. Cotté's Analysis

The article begins by questioning the logic of Mr. Cotté's explanation for a descending UFO. The author points out that if the craft's flux were cylindrical, its width should remain constant or widen near the ground due to ground effect. While acknowledging that a conical flux (as suggested by Cotté) could explain a narrowing affected zone, the author argues that a subsequent take-off should create a circular area that widens with altitude, which is not observed in the animation or on the ground. This leads to the conclusion that Mr. Cotté's scenario is "rather shaky."

The author further challenges Cotté's explanation by referencing a detail from the NT8 report (page 74) which states that the flattened stalks of the crop were oriented from summit to base in a North-South direction. This contradicts the direction indicated by Cotté's animation. The article suggests that the UFO would have had to take off vertically, but the only witness testimony (Catherine, page 14) describes the object rising "quite high... like a shooting star... straight to the right... in the direction of V7," which does not clearly indicate a vertical ascent. The author also notes that the object's trajectory, as described by witness Rosine, suggests it came from the North, implying a need for a U-turn or reverse maneuver for landing according to Cotté's animation, adding further inconsistencies.

Crop Circle Analysis

The article then scrutinizes the crop circle evidence presented, particularly a "magnificent spiral" shown at the 4:00 mark. The author contends that this is an optical illusion, with many stalks lying radially on a background of stalks lying in a circle, and that it is more an illusion of optics than a real spiral. Furthermore, the author highlights a contradiction in Cotté's claim that all flattenings and spirals are clockwise. The animation shows a circle (at 4:20) made by a rising ball that then descends to create a second circle lying in the opposite direction (counter-clockwise). The author sarcastically notes the lack of coherence, attributing it to a "slip-up."

At the 4:43 mark, the author points out that the circles are concentric rather than spiral, and Mr. Cotté illustrates this with three red overlays to emphasize the visible circles. The article concludes this section with a sarcastic "Thank you Mr. Cotté!"

An unrelated piece of information is presented at 5:10: that amaranth is an Inca plant richer in iron than wheat. This is followed by a rhetorical question about its capital importance, given that the amaranth plans were dried but not carried away or destroyed, implying a negligible harvest.

Critique of Mr. Cotté's Investigative Approach

The article references another video where Mr. Cotté admits (at 5:30) that he is not a good investigator and that investigation is not his "cup of tea." Despite this admission, the author notes that Cotté later (at 22:04) "denigrates, the word is weak, the investigators of the NT8." The author defends the NT8 investigation from 1979, stating that it was a very good, even excellent, inquiry for its time, especially considering Mr. Cotté began his ufology work 29 years later. The author challenges Cotté to present an equivalent investigation, even one conducted 40 years later, and criticizes his arrogance and contempt for investigators he does not know and cannot match, as he himself admits.

The author suggests that Cotté should have simply stated that he did not share the conclusions of the NT8 investigation, which would have been more honest and realistic, rather than denigrating the work of others. The author concludes by mentioning personal knowledge of one of the NT8 investigators and their perspective on the case, which Mr. Cotté is apparently unaware of.

Publication Information and Future Issues

The final page (32/32) reiterates the magazine's commitment to presenting information directly and collectively, striving for sincerity over mere pleasantry. It hints at a continuation in the next issue, stating, "The continuation does not necessarily depend on our will. To the next issue... perhaps? But it is not certain..."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around critical analysis of UFO evidence and explanations, particularly those offered by prominent ufologists like Mr. Cotté. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims and a strong emphasis on logical consistency, factual accuracy, and respect for previous investigative work. The magazine champions a rigorous, evidence-based approach to ufology, contrasting it with what it perceives as arrogance and flawed reasoning in some contemporary analyses. The importance of thorough investigation and the potential for misinterpretation or optical illusions in phenomena like crop circles are also highlighted.