Has the ownership or operator of the Buga Sphere changed over time?
Executive summary
Ownership and custody of the so‑called “Buga Sphere” has shifted in public view: local finders in Colombia initially controlled the object, it was then publicly displayed at Jaime Maussan’s Maussan Television in Mexico City at a June 20, 2025 press conference attended by Dr. Steven Greer and U.S. Rep. Eric Burlison, and subsequent reporting shows prominent UFO researchers (Greer, Maussan) and paid conferences drove custody and publicity [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not provide a clear, documented legal transfer of title between Colombian authorities, private finders, and the international promoters; multiple accounts emphasize display and analysis rather than formal ownership records [1] [3] [2].
1. From field finders to teasers: how the object left Colombia
Local accounts say the sphere was recovered after a March 2025 incident near Buga, Colombia, and initially remained in the hands of local people who filmed and publicized it; some reports describe confrontations with authorities and a finder (Potro) who claimed he refused to hand it over to the Colombian government [4] [5]. The reporting stresses that early custodians were civilians rather than an official scientific body, which created the first gap between possession and formal, verifiable chain‑of‑custody [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention a police‑recorded transfer of custody or an official Colombian government statement confirming legal ownership.
2. A high‑profile transfer to the UFO circuit: Mexico City and the June 20 conference
By June 20, 2025, the Buga Sphere was on display at Jaime Maussan’s Maussan Television headquarters in Mexico City for a press conference that featured Jaime Maussan, Dr. Steven Greer, and U.S. Rep. Eric Burlison, according to multiple accounts describing that public showing and the attendance of “a who’s who” in UFO circles [1] [2]. That event functionally moved the sphere from a local curiosity into the custody and control of international promoters and researchers who hosted public viewings and made samples available to labs, according to reportage and commentary [3] [1]. Sources characterize this as a de‑facto transfer of operational control to the UFO‑advocacy community rather than a legal sale or government acquisition [1] [2].
3. Promoters, protectors and legal posturing
Journalistic and opinion pieces report that a “world‑renowned attorney” established protections of ownership around the sphere after it was displayed publicly, signaling an attempt to formalize control and guard material shared with labs and the media [3]. Those protections are described in promotional reporting rather than in publicly posted legal filings available in the cited material; the narrative emphasizes PR and legal signaling intended to secure the object for the promoters’ analysis and events [3]. Available sources do not include copies of legal deeds, export/import records, or Colombian judicial orders confirming a formal chain of title.
4. Scientific analysis versus custody disputes
Multiple dispatches emphasize that samples and photos from the sphere were sent to several labs for analysis and that high‑magnification scans and weight/chemical claims followed, but they also note concerns about researcher credibility and contested results [6] [7]. That pattern—samples sent for testing while the physical sphere remained in promoter custody—reinforces how operational control shifted to the Maussan/Greer promotional network even as scientific verification lagged and was disputed [1] [6].
5. Competing narratives: hoax, art project, or alien artifact
The record of changing custody is inseparable from competing agendas. Promoters (Maussan, Greer) framed the transfers as necessary for analysis and disclosure, giving them incentives to keep the object visible at conferences and in their networks [1] [2]. Skeptics and debunkers later framed those same moves as hallmarks of an elaborate hoax or publicity campaign tied to known promoters who have previously promoted questionable finds [7] [5]. Reporting notes both the spectacle of the press events and the absence of independent, transparent custodial documentation [1] [7].
6. What remains unresolved and why it matters
Available sources show custody and public operation of the sphere moved from local finders in Colombia into the hands of international promoters and researchers via high‑profile displays and legal posturing [4] [1] [3]. What the sources do not provide is a clear, legally documented lineage of ownership or an official Colombian governmental adjudication of title; that lack matters because scientific credibility and possible legal/ethical obligations (export, cultural property, chain‑of‑custody) depend on such records—but no such records are cited in the coverage [1] [3]. Readers should weigh the conspicuous public displays and promoter control against the absence of independently verifiable custodial paperwork in the available reporting [1] [7].