Who are the key creators, influencers, or communities behind the Buga Sphere movement?
Executive summary
Promoters and influencers around the “Buga Sphere” converge on a small group of UFO investigators, alternative-physics researchers, and online communities — notably Jamie Maussan and Dr. Steven Greer as public promoters, Patrick Morcillo and proponents of exotic-physics models as technical advocates, and broad social-media/UFO-forum communities that amplified the story [1] [2] [3] [4]. Mainstream scientists and skeptical commentators — e.g., Julia Mossbridge and independent reporters — urged caution and described the object as possibly human-made or an art project, creating a clear divide in narratives [5] [6].
1. The public showmen who brought the sphere to mass attention
Jamie Maussan organized press events that placed the object in front of a global UFO audience and assembled a roster of high-profile advocates and media, turning the artifact into a spectacle for believers and politicians alike [1] [4]. Maussan’s role is repeatedly cited in coverage as the on-the-ground promoter who moved the sphere from a local curiosity in Colombia into international discourse [1].
2. The UFO movement’s heavyweight advocate: Steven Greer
Dr. Steven Greer, founder of the Disclosure Project, emerged as a leading public defender and investigator of the sphere’s anomalous claims; his reports and appearances were used by promoters to assert extraordinary origins and technical features [2] [7]. Greer’s involvement signaled to the UFO community that established disclosure activists were treating the sphere as a major event [2].
3. The technical cadre advancing exotic-physics explanations
Physicist Patrick Morcillo published a formal theoretical framework arguing the sphere manifests “negative-mass” and topo‑temporal physics — a scientific-looking justification that the artifact represents post–Standard Model phenomena [3]. Morcillo’s paper gave promoters a citation to claim academic backing and supplied specialized jargon that circulated among believer-oriented blogs and analysis sites [3] [8].
4. Skeptics, independent scientists and cautious journalists
Mainstream scientists and skeptical commentators voiced restraint. Julia Mossbridge and other physicists urged thorough vetting and suggested the sphere could be a sophisticated art object or human-made device, pushing back against immediate extraterrestrial claims [5] [6]. News outlets and science writers also documented internal features and counterarguments, creating a competing narrative of caution [6].
5. Online communities: Reddit, Twitter/X and niche UFO forums
Reddit’s r/UFOs and other forums became hubs for hands-on analysis, image and X‑ray scrutiny, and coordinated crowd‑investigation; those threads functioned both as amplifiers for extraordinary claims and as spaces where skeptics dissected evidence [4]. Viral clips — including alleged responses to Sanskrit chants — spread on social platforms and regional press, increasing reach while muddying verification [9] [10].
6. Fringe promoters and viral-content outlets
Small blogs, opinion columns, and sensational sites framed the sphere as everything from an ancient alien warning to a revolutionary propulsion device; pieces connecting the object to figures like Bob Lazar circulated in alternative‑UFO channels, demonstrating how fringe narratives attach to an ambiguous artifact [11] [12]. These outlets prioritized narrative and viral traction over independent lab validation [11] [12].
7. Conflicting incentives and implied agendas
Promoters benefit from attention, donations, book sales and event traffic; press conferences and exclusive reports monetize belief networks and political access [1] [4]. Academic-sounding work such as Morcillo’s provides legitimacy to promoters, while skeptics and mainstream scientists are incentivized to demand replication and transparent testing [3] [5]. Available sources do not mention internal funding trails or formal lab chain-of-custody beyond press reporting.
8. What the record actually shows and what it doesn’t
Reporting documents visible actors — Maussan, Greer, Morcillo, online communities and skeptical scientists — and lists specific claims (reactive behavior, internal microspheres, unusual alloys) used by advocates [1] [2] [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention independent, peer‑reviewed replication of physical anomalies or an agreed, transparent forensic chain confirming extraterrestrial origin; mainstream scientists explicitly call for more vetting [5] [6].
Conclusion — who drives the Buga narrative?
The movement is driven by a coalition: charismatic promoters (Jamie Maussan), disclosure advocates (Steven Greer), a small set of researchers offering exotic-physics models (Patrick Morcillo), and energized online communities that amplify and mutate claims; opposing that coalition are skeptical scientists and mainstream reporters urging rigorous proof [1] [2] [3] [5]. The result is a polarized information ecosystem where credibility hinges on independent, reproducible testing that current reporting does not yet supply [5].