1. Michel Gauquelin's first book L'Influence des Astres (1955) cited all of his French sources and gave the birthdata that had been used. One can therefore reconstruct the results he obtained, and check them (See Page 13).
2. Then in 1960 the results of Europe-wide replication appear, l'Hommes et les Astres, resulting from collaboration between Françoise and Michel, whereby they obtained birthdata from registry offices in five or six European nations. That was a monumental achievement, and their book cited full details of all the sources. It should have been their fundamental work... but there was one catch: it did not give the birth-data, so nobody could check its results.
Here is the well-known graph of Mars and sports champions, which has been widely reproduced. No-one can reconstruct it, or will ever be able to, because the data was not released.
3. In 1970-72 data for the European professional groups was published, in large volumes, these being the only books co-authored with his wife Françoise. These groups are generally much larger than those he had earlier described in 1960. Regrettably, these data-volumes do not comment on where the data came from. MG averred that the 1970-72 volumes 'were directly compiled from material previously published,'1 viz the 1955 and 1960 books, which is rather vague and hardly adequate.
When in 1970 the Gauquelins published their 'final' total of 2,088 sports champions, we would like to have been told where the extra six hundred had come from. Instead, they merely stated:
The birth data published in this series corresponds roughly to the results given in 1960.2
Roughly? Here is how 'roughly' the two correspond:
|1960 totals||1970 totals|
|Science & Physicians||3305||3647|
|Artists (Painters & Musicians)||1345+703=2048||1473+1249=2722|
|Writers & Journalists||826+824||1352+674|
They're all different! So we have a fairly catastrophic legacy, whereby the 'definitive' Gauquelin totals, of 1970-72, are not defined or sourced. One may surmise that the data alluded to in the two previous books was contained therein - but in that case, how come the 1970 volume (as up on CURA) has got less military birthdata than Michel claimed to have in 1960? The great replication of 1960 should have been or could have been real science in action, confirming the central hypothesis, but it cannot readily be evaluated, because no-one ever gave us the data. The effect here, it that anyone approaching the subject is going to be permanently muddled as regards what the numbers are supposed to be.
4. His 1988 book Written in the Stars was a retrospective work, looking back at what he'd done. It consistently used the 1960 data from Les Hommes et Les Astres. It is quite hard to comprehend how this could have been done, without people complaining that (a) it was all unverifiable because he never released the data, and (b) why had he not used the corrected data from California? It had a Foreword by Hans Eysenck and an afterword by Geoffrey Dean.
For a shockingly sceptical evaluation of the Gauquelin's historic work on Mars and Sports champions, see my recent article in 'ISAR International Astrologer' journal, The Gauquelin Mars-Effect: Did it Replicate? of the April 2020 issue.