The Buga Sphere - does this object exist? - has it officially been carbon dated? - what materials is it made of?
Executive summary
The so‑called "Buga Sphere" is a real, widely reported physical object alleged to have been recovered in Colombia and described in multiple outlets as a metallic sphere with etched symbols and microscopic organic residues [1] [2]. Claims that the University of Georgia (UGA) has radiocarbon‑dated organic material from the sphere to about 12,560 years before present have been publicly announced by Dr. Steven Greer and amplified by partisan and social outlets [3] [1], but independent verification and full laboratory documentation are not present in the sourced reporting and have been questioned by skeptical observers [4] [5].
1. Does the Buga Sphere exist — field reports and media coverage
Multiple English‑language reports and commentary threads describe a recovered object, repeatedly called the "Buga Sphere," said to have fallen in Colombia and recovered for study; those reports consistently refer to a metallic ball with surface etchings and microscopic internal residues, and present images and secondhand field descriptions [1] [2] [6]. Those accounts are reported through a mix of channels—UFO proponents, independent blogs, and social posts—rather than a single peer‑reviewed archaeological publication, which leaves the provenance narrative reliant on media claims and spokesperson statements [3] [1].
2. Has it been officially carbon‑dated — what the sources actually say
Public announcements by Dr. Steven Greer and several outlets state that material taken from the sphere was submitted to the Center for Applied Isotope Studies at the University of Georgia and returned an AMS radiocarbon age of about 12,560 years [3] [1] [2]. Those announcements frame the dated sample as a resin or organic residue recovered from microscopic cavities in the object, and they claim that accelerator mass spectrometry was used [1] [3]. However, community fact‑checking threads and commentary note that the underlying lab report, chain‑of‑custody documentation, and peer‑reviewed publication have not been produced in the sourced materials, and critics flag the possibility of contamination or misattribution of the organic sample [4] [5]. In short: there are public claims of a UGA date, but the reporting available here does not include an independently verifiable laboratory report or published dataset confirming an official, peer‑vetted result [4] [5].
3. What materials is the sphere made of — reported observations vs. confirmed analyses
The sourced pieces describe the object as metallic in appearance with etched symbols and fiber‑ or thread‑like inclusions and microscopic resin trapped in pores or holes; outlets explicitly report metallic composition and embedded organic resin and fibers as the items of interest for dating and analysis [1] [2] [3]. Several sources underline a methodological point: radiocarbon dating applies to organic matter, not metal or stone, so labs dated resinous deposits or entrapped organic grains rather than the metal itself [5] [1]. No comprehensive, peer‑reviewed materials analysis (e.g., elemental composition, metallurgy, isotopic fingerprinting beyond the claimed carbon date) is present in the reporting, so the precise alloy, manufacturing markers, or whether the object is naturally occurring mineral versus human‑made metal remain unverified in these sources [1] [2].
4. Plausible alternative explanations and research gaps
Skeptics cited in discussion forums warn that organic material can migrate into cracks or be modern contamination, and that a dated resin does not by itself prove the object’s manufacture date or extraordinary origin [5] [4]. The reporting shows heavy amplification by UFO proponents and niche blogs, which creates incentive structures that may favor sensational interpretations over careful publication [3] [1]. Importantly, none of the supplied sources include a full UGA lab report, peer‑reviewed publication, or independent replication study—missing pieces that would be required to move the claim from provocative press release to scientific consensus [4] [5].
5. Bottom line — what can be asserted with confidence
It can be confidently stated from the reporting that an object labeled the Buga Sphere exists in the public record and that advocates claim UGA‑center radiocarbon dating of organic material associated with it returned an age near 12,560 years [1] [3] [2]. It cannot be confidently stated, based on the provided sources, that there is an independently verified, peer‑published laboratory report proving the sphere itself was manufactured 12,560 years ago, nor that the sphere’s bulk material composition and provenance have been conclusively determined; the dated material appears to be organic resin or deposits found in the object rather than the metal itself [4] [5] [1].