The AI that I reluctantly use for editing and vibe-coding would put it like this: "High-strangeness event-fields form a reproducible anomalous nonterminal rupture-regime that becomes legible through terminal-disentanglement architecture and survives direct comparison with terminal catastrophe fields under a predeclared strongest-foil statistical protocol. AMM has shown that astrology can generate a falsifiable public theory program whose first promoted branch has survived a severe strongest-foil comparison. If that result withstands external replication, astrology’s public status cannot remain what it was before." But I, as a verified human, would put it like this. I developed a unique, falsifiable, and reproducible way to study UFOs. No one has ever tried it before. NO ONE. I've been gradually developing it for about a year, with the help of hundreds of reddit experiencers, many of whom subscribe to this sub. It has produced highly statistically significant evidence. I'm excited about it. It uses publicly available information and math. No exotic material needed, no paywall, no insider testimony needed, no top secret clearance needed. No disclosure needed. Just math. It didn't come out of nowhere. It's built on the work of people that the UFO community is familiar with. Jacques Vallée, Carl Jung, J. Allen Hynek, and others who suspected that UFOs are not just objects but a deeper class of anomalous events. As I'm sure you know, Vallée argued that UFOs can't be reduced to "spacecraft from another planet." My homegrown, independent, amateur, non-profit research project begins exactly where Vallée left off. It asks whether that deeper high-strangeness phenomenon has a measurable structure. IT DOES. UFO events can be studied as a distinct, reproducible regime rather than as a pile of disconnected weird stories. I hate to use the word bombshell, we are all sick of that word. But what the hell. This time, it is warranted. Jung approached the same mystery from another direction. He said UFOs can't be understood only as external objects or only as private fantasies. They might belong to a third category, where real events and collective symbolic meaning converge in ways ordinary categories struggle to handle. He wondered if UFOs reflect a shift in the human psyche, surfacing through "signs in the heavens" at moments of cultural instability. My project takes that Jungian opening seriously without turning it into mysticism or dogma. It asks whether the sky-event relationship can be tested rather than merely speculated about. IT CAN BE. But I've been around the UFO community long enough to know how claims like that are received. But bear with me. Vallée showed why UFOs must be studied as more than objects. Jung showed why the sky may matter symbolically when anomalous events erupt into human life. My research project turns that shared intuition into a falsifiable method. It uses astronomical timing and planetary geometry not as fortune-telling, and not as a claim that planets "cause" UFOs, but as a public, testable coordinate system for asking whether high-strangeness events gather into repeatable patterns that ordinary chance should not produce. It turns out they do and it's easy to show. Howard Sasportas helps clarify that. In his work on astrology and human transformation, he argued that planetary patterns shouldn't be treated as crude mechanical causes, but as symbolic indicators of pressure, crisis, emergence, and developmental timing. That is much closer to how I use astrology. It doesn't say "Mars made the UFO happen" or something like that. It asks whether high-strangeness events reliably arrive within distinctive astronomical-temporal architectures. They do. It asks whether the sky can function as a repeatable timing map for a category of events that Vallée and Jung both believed was real, meaningful, and still badly misunderstood. It can. Joseph Campbell helps explain why this matters. Across cultures, he showed that people repeatedly describe anomalous encounters through the same basic grammar: rupture, ordeal, transformation, and return. Vallée saw that UFO events often behave like modern versions of that old initiatory pattern. Jung saw that they can erupt where outer anomaly and inner symbolic crisis meet. AMM asks the next question: can that pattern be detected in the events themselves, before anyone tells a story about what they mean? My research says yes. Evelyn Underhill opens the door even wider. Long before modern UFOs, she showed that profound encounters with the unknown often unfold through recognizable stages. Awakening, disorientation, ordeal, illumination, and difficult reintegration into ordinary life. Vallée understood that UFO encounters can disturb witnesses far beyond the moment of sighting. Jung understood that they can carry immense symbolic force. Underhill helps us see that this kind of rupture-and-transformation pattern is not random human melodrama. It belongs to a much older literature of extraordinary experience, and my research now gives us a way to ask whether some UFO events participate in that pattern at the level of measurable structure, not just personal interpretation. They do. Hynek supplied the sober research discipline beneath all of this. He spent years separating weak reports from stubborn cases that resisted ordinary explanation, and he insisted that the UFO problem should be treated as a real subject of inquiry rather than a punchline or a belief system. Vallée widened that inquiry. Jung deepened it. Underhill and Campbell help us understand the human meaning of rupture and transformation. My research adds the missing step: a reproducible way to test whether the most genuinely anomalous UFO events share a measurable structure of their own. Put together, they point to the same unfinished task. Hynek insisted that UFOs deserve disciplined study. Vallée showed that the phenomenon is stranger and deeper than most people think. Jung showed that its symbolic dimension cannot be waved away. Campbell and Underhill showed that rupture, ordeal, transformation, and return are ancient structures of extraordinary human experience. The Astro-Mythic Map carries that whole lineage forward by making the next move testable. It takes publicly documented UFO events, translates them into standardized astronomical-temporal field objects, compares them against control group fields, and asks a brutally simple question. Does the claimed structure survive adversarial comparison, or does it collapse? That makes AMM reproducible, because other researchers can inspect the same public inputs and rerun the method. And it makes AMM falsifiable, because the entire claim fails if the pattern disappears under stronger controls, independent replication, or better statistical challenge. I know exactly what many of you are thinking. Astrology? UFOs? Absolutely not. Fair enough. I would have had the same reaction before I saw the results. So don’t believe me because I sound excited, and don’t reject it because the method touches a taboo subject. Judge it the old-fashioned way: by the inputs, the controls, the math, the preregistered comparison logic, and whether the result holds up when other people try to break it. I am not asking for faith. I am asking for scrutiny. I'm not hiding the machinery. The Reader and Analyzer stacks are available for download on my sub. Anyone can inspect the logic, examine the rules, gather their own chart datasets, run their own comparisons, and try to break the result. That is the whole point. I do not want AMM protected from criticism. I want it stress-tested in public. If the structure is real, it should survive hostile examination. If it is not, the method should expose that too. In my latest run, 40 high-strangeness cases were compared against 39 catastrophes. Ordinary events, such as weddings or sports are far too easy for the math to differentiate. They are not a challenge. But high-strangeness and catastrophe share structural traits. Despite that, the high-strangeness fields separated anyway. The effect was large: Cohen’s d = 0.81, Cliff’s delta = 0.46, with a one-sided permutation p-value of about 0.0002. In plain English: the UFO events did not merely look "intense." They formed a distinct astronomical-temporal pattern that survived direct comparison with death-and-disaster fields under a predeclared statistical protocol. That is the result. That is the bombshell. High-strangeness cases are finally open as a structured category of events, not just as anecdotes that believers defend and skeptics dismiss. It means the weirdest UFO reports leave behind a measurable structural signature even when we bracket the usual fights over aliens, government secrets, crash debris, or witness interpretation. That gives the field a new path forward. Not more belief, not more debunking, but a public method that other people can inspect, challenge, replicate, and either confirm or defeat. TLDR - I developed a public, falsifiable, reproducible way to study UFO using astronomical timing, event data, and statistics. Not insider testimony, secret materials, or disclosure promises. The latest results are hard to ignore: 40 high-strangeness UFO event-fields separated strongly from 39 terminal catastrophe fields under a predeclared strongest-foil protocol, with a large effect size and a permutation p-value of about 0.0002. submitted by /u/Julian_Thorne [link] [comments]