Have any peer-reviewed studies or museum reports published carbon dating results for the Buga Sphere?

1. What promoters claim — a 12,560‑year date and UGA involvement

Public statements from proponents such as Dr. Steven Greer and downstream press/PR sites assert that a resin or organic material removed from the Buga Sphere was submitted to the University of Georgia’s Center for Applied Isotope Studies (sometimes called Applied/Center for Applied Isotope Studies) and returned an age around 12,560 years BP, placing the material in the Younger Dryas period ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Several popular‑audience sites and blogs recount that number and describe accelerator mass spectrometry or radiocarbon analysis as the method used ^{[2] [6]}.

2. What’s actually published in academic or museum channels — not found

Available reporting collected here does not include a peer‑reviewed article, an academic preprint, or a formal museum report presenting raw lab data, sample context, calibration details, or full lab methods for the Buga Sphere radiocarbon claims. The sources are promotional posts, news/PR aggregators, blogs, and social posts repeating the lab result claim; none is a cited, peer‑reviewed publication or an institutional museum report in these materials ^{[1] [2] [3] [7]}.

3. Methodology questions raised in coverage — what critics point to

Critical accounts and skeptical threads highlight basic radiocarbon limitations and potential contamination issues: radiocarbon dates apply to organic material, not metal; microscopic resin or shells inside a metal sphere can move or be modern contaminants; and uncalibrated 14C ages need calibration and contextual archaeology to become calendar dates. A Metabunk thread and skeptical writeups note that online presentations have been incomplete and that the circulated report looked thin and amateurish ^{[5] [4]}. Some sources also mention specific lab cleaning steps claimed by promoters (ultrasonic bath and HCl) but critics still question whether those steps and the sample provenance rule out migration or contamination ^{[8] [5]}.

4. Disagreement among outlets — amplification vs. skepticism

Pro‑claim outlets and PR pieces present the 12,560 figure as a headline result and discuss grand implications (lost advanced civilizations, Younger Dryas links) ^{[2] [7]}. Independent skeptics and investigative writers take the opposite tack: they treat the claim as implausible without detailed lab reports, point to methodological shortcomings, and call the overall episode a likely hoax or marketing stunt ^{[4] [5]}. Both narratives cite the same alleged UGA test, but they diverge on trust in the provenance and reporting of the data ^{[2] [4]}.

5. What would be needed to move this from claim to accepted science

To be accepted by archaeologists or materials scientists, the claim would need: (a) a formal laboratory report from the testing facility with sample IDs, pretreatment steps, AMS measurements, and calibrated ages; (b) publication or independent replication in a peer‑reviewed venue; and (c) clear provenance demonstrating the dated material was in situ in the sphere since its manufacture rather than later intrusion. None of the provided sources includes those elements; instead they show press claims, a short circulated report, and online debate ^{[1] [3] [4] [8]}.

6. How to interpret the current landscape — cautious, not conclusory

Given the sources, the safest conclusion is that carbon dating results have been publicly claimed and widely reported in popular outlets, but the underlying data and peer‑reviewed documentation are not presented in the available materials here. That absence, combined with pointed methodological critiques in skeptical coverage, means the extraordinary age claim remains unproven in the academic sense ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

7. Next steps and what to watch for

Watch for a full lab report from the named isotope lab with sample identifiers and calibration details, publication in a peer‑reviewed journal, or independent replication by another accredited lab; those would materially change the evidentiary status. Meanwhile, treat single‑page reports, PR posts, and promotional announcements as provisional until corroborated by transparent, peer‑reviewed documentation ^{[1] [2] [4]}.