When was the Buga Sphere built and who funded its construction?
Executive summary
Available reporting says the Buga Sphere was first observed over Buga, Colombia, in March 2025 and recovered soon afterward; proponents later presented it at events in Mexico City and submitted microscopic organics from the object for radiocarbon testing that some outlets report dated to about 12,560 years ago (reported UGA testing) [1] [2]. Sources disagree sharply about origin and provenance: mainstream outlets and independent analysts call for rigorous vetting and suggest terrestrial explanations or hoaxes, while promoters characterize the object as anomalous and ancient [3] [4] [5].
1. What the reporting actually says about when it was “built”
No reliable source in the set claims a human construction date. Initial accounts place the sighting and fall of the sphere in March 2025 and the object’s recovery and local examinations in May 2025; tomography, X‑ray and other scans were reported through mid‑2025 [1] [6] [7]. Separately, several outlets report that radiocarbon results on microscopic organic material recovered from the sphere returned an age of roughly 12,560 years (10,560 BCE), which proponents interpret as dating material associated with the sphere to the Younger Dryas era — not a documented human construction event [2] [8]. Available sources do not mention a verified manufacture date or a chain-of-custody that demonstrates the object was “built” at that ancient time; reporting limits itself to dating organic residues found with or in the sphere [2] [8].
2. Who paid for—or promoted—its analysis
The public face of the sphere’s investigation was driven largely by private researchers and promoters rather than an identifiable governmental funding agency. The sphere was displayed at Jaime Maussan’s media events in Mexico City and examined by groups and individuals active in the UAP/ancient‑artifact scene; press conferences and conferences around the object were organized by those networks [9] [10]. The radiocarbon testing most often cited is attributed to the University of Georgia’s Applied Isotope Studies lab in media summaries, but the reporting does not lay out who commissioned or funded those specific tests [2] [8]. Available sources do not document a named financier or formal grant that paid for construction (not found in current reporting) or for the entirety of the analyses.
3. Competing narratives and their implicit agendas
Promoters frame the sphere as revolutionary evidence of advanced prehistory or non‑human technology; they emphasize dramatic test results (12,560 years) and unusual physical traits (seamless exterior, micro‑spheres, anomalous behaviors) to attract attention and funding from the UFO community [2] [6]. Skeptics, academic voices and investigative pieces treat the object as likely terrestrial, potentially an art project or hoax; they stress the need for rigorous provenance, contamination controls for radiocarbon samples, and independent laboratory verification [11] [12] [4]. Both camps benefit from media attention: promoters through fundraising and platforming, skeptics through reputation for debunking — these are the hidden incentives visible in the sources [10] [4].
4. What the radiocarbon claim does and does not prove
Reports say microscopic organic matter associated with the sphere was dated to ~12,560 years by accelerator mass spectrometry at UGA in some accounts; that establishes an age for the particular organics tested, not necessarily the sphere’s manufacture, provenance or origin [2] [8]. Critics cited in reporting warn that organics can be secondary contaminants, or moved post‑deposition through microcracks, and so a single radiocarbon result cannot by itself demonstrate an anomalously ancient manufactured object [8] [12]. Available sources do not document multiple, independent labs reproducing the same date with full published methods and chain‑of‑custody (not found in current reporting).
5. What reputable scientists recommend next
Experts quoted urge standard scientific practice: secure chain‑of‑custody, multi‑lab blind testing, peer‑reviewed publication of methods and raw data, and physical access by independent materials scientists before extraordinary claims are accepted [12] [6]. Some independent analysts published detailed material analyses and alternative mechanical explanations (superplastic forming, magnetic pulse welding, fiber‑optic assemblies) that are consistent with terrestrial manufacture [11] [13].
Bottom line
Sources report the sphere’s fall and recovery in March–May 2025 and media accounts of a radiocarbon result near 12,560 years for organic material associated with it [1] [2]. The record does not include a verified ancient construction date, nor a named funder who paid to “build” the object; instead, the case is characterized by contested analyses, private promotion, and calls for independent verification [2] [9] [4].