Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Have any experts analyzed the authenticity of Buga Sphere photos or videos?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows multiple groups — from enthusiast forums to self-styled investigative teams and a few named scientists — have claimed to analyze Buga Sphere photos and videos, with conclusions ranging from “authentic” to “crude hoax” and “needs more testing” [1] [2] [3]. Major mainstream confirmation is absent in the provided sources: some outlets report expert skepticism (e.g., Dr. Julia Mossbridge calling it an “art project”) while fringe outlets and promoters report scans or “early analyses” finding authenticity or exotic materials [4] [1] [5].
1. Who says they’ve analyzed the imagery — and what they claim
Enthusiast sites and UFO-focused outlets report community-driven and amateur forensic work: Reddit threads and forum “megathreads” where users zoomed into photos and videos are described as hubs for pixel-level scrutiny [6]. Mystery-focused sites assert “early analyses confirm the video is authentic and not a product of artificial intelligence or computer graphics” [1]. At the same time, promotional reporting tied to high-profile presenters (e.g., Jaime Maussan) highlights scans and microscopy claimed to show fiber-optic networks and microspheres inside the recovered object [6] [5].
2. Credible experts vs. skeptics in the coverage
Some named scientists appear in coverage with skeptical or measured views: cognitive neuroscientist Dr. Julia Mossbridge is quoted saying the sphere “seems kind of like an art project” and noting there is “no confirmation that the object seen in the video is the same as the metal sphere found in Colombia” [4]. Conversely, Mexican researchers and engineers quoted in tabloid and pro-UFO outlets claim microstructure and ionized fields around the object, but those claims are reported in sources that also publish sensational takes [5].
3. Conflicting conclusions and who benefits
Reports diverge sharply: sites sympathetic to the UFO hypothesis emphasize microscopies and purported anomalous effects (soil dehydration, ion anomalies) that would support non‑terrestrial origins [7] [5]. Other analysts and critical write-ups call the sphere a modern fabrication or marketing hoax and say no rigorous independent analysis has been published; one skeptical summary states “no such analysis has occurred; samples remain in private hands” [2] [3]. The differences track clear agendas: promoters and certain outlets push a narrative of a paradigm‑shifting artifact, while skeptics and investigative bloggers emphasize the likelihood of hoax, possible viral marketing, and lack of transparent data [2] [3] [5].
4. What the reports actually analyze — and what they don’t
Claims of “analysis” span a spectrum: social‑media frame‑by‑frame video zooms and community forensics [6], proprietary microscopy and X‑ray scans reported by pro‑UFO outlets [5], and press statements by promoters announcing further testing [6]. However, several sources explicitly note gaps: uncertainty whether the flying object in viral video is the same physical sphere recovered, and that samples and data are not widely available for independent verification [4] [3]. In short, the materials and raw data underpinning many dramatic claims are not shown in the reporting cited here.
5. Independent, peer‑reviewed work — not found in current reporting
Available sources do not mention peer‑reviewed, independently replicated forensic studies published in mainstream scientific journals that confirm the imagery or materials as extraterrestrial or definitive in provenance. Some technical or theoretical papers (e.g., SSRN preprints) posit exotic physics explanations for the object, but these are not the same as independent empirical validation and come from niche or preprint venues [8].
6. How to interpret the mixed evidence — practical next steps for verification
Given the competing claims, rigorous verification would require transparent chain‑of‑custody for samples, publication of raw imagery and metadata, independent labs conducting blind analyses (materials, C‑14 where organic samples exist, isotopic studies), and open peer review. Several sources indicate such institutional checks have been called for but not universally delivered; proponents tout preliminary scans while critics say samples remain private [6] [3] [5].
7. Bottom line for readers
Multiple actors — hobbyist analysts, promotors, and a few named academics — claim to have examined photos, videos, and/or the recovered sphere, yet reporting is fractured and partisan: some pieces emphasize authenticity and exotic findings, others label the object a hoax and call for transparency [1] [2] [4]. The crucial limitation in current coverage is the lack of widely available, independently replicated laboratory results and raw data; until independent scientists publish verifiable analyses, assertions about definitive authenticity remain contested in available reporting [3] [4].