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.
What forensic or material-analytical tests (XRF, SEM, mass spectrometry) have been performed on the Buga Sphere and what did they reveal?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows multiple non‑destructive and destructive analyses have been claimed on the Buga Sphere—including X‑ray / CT scans, XRF elemental screening, SEM (with EDS), thermogravimetric and radiocarbon (AMS) tests—but the record is fragmented, sometimes contradictory, and contested by critics (claims of a 95.5% Al alloy from XRF and 12,560‑year‑old resin from AMS are widely cited) [1] [2] [3] [4]. Major institutional validation and unified, peer‑reviewed publication are not present in the sources collected; some laboratories and result documents are questioned for authenticity [4] [5].
1. X‑ray / CT tomography: “Seeing inside without cutting it open”
Multiple accounts say radiology and computed tomography (CT) scans were performed early in the investigation, reporting a multi‑layered construction with concentric shells, internal microspheres and a central “chip” or component; Dr. José Luis Velázquez’s X‑rays are repeatedly referenced as showing no welds or joints and revealing internal features [2] [6] [7]. These imaging reports are the backbone of the extraordinary structural claims but exist mainly in journalistic summaries and enthusiast reposts rather than a single, widely‑published scientific paper [2] [6].
2. XRF / elemental spectrometry: “Mostly aluminum, or so it’s claimed”
At least one summary cites X‑ray fluorescence (XRF) results claiming the outer shell is roughly 95.5% aluminum with trace manganese, iron, copper and zinc—an alloy that the reporting says “does not correspond to a standard industrial alloy” [1]. That XRF figure is widely quoted in popular writeups; however, the sources do not show a full laboratory report, chain‑of‑custody documentation, or independent replication in a peer‑reviewed venue [1].
3. SEM / microanalysis and optical‑fiber claims: “Fibers and microspheres under the microscope”
Several outlets report Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and SEM‑EDS analyses of tiny extracted samples (equatorial pins, filaments) that allegedly found silicon/oxygen compositions consistent with optical fiber and other microstructures [8] [7] [9]. The UNAM‑linked summary reportedly confirmed the presence of optical‑fiber‑like material (silicon + oxygen + trace zinc) via SEM and chemical testing [8]. These microstructural claims are notable because they suggest engineered components, but public reporting lacks full methodological detail and independent peer validation [8].
4. Thermogravimetric / polymer tests: “Heat sensitivity and polymer degradation”
One source asserts thermogravimetric analysis showed polymer materials in the object degrade above ~70°C, implying sensitivity to heat and constraints on mechanical testing [8]. The reporting frames this as a material limitation but does not publish lab protocols, sample preparation details, or replicate data in a mainstream scientific journal [8].
5. AMS radiocarbon dating: “A 12,560‑year‑old resin — contested”
High‑profile claims that accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dating at the University of Georgia dated a resin embedded in microscopic holes to ~12,560 years ago are circulating and repeatedly cited by proponents [10] [3]. But those AMS documents and the way they were presented have prompted scrutiny: critics point to inconsistencies in reported forms, missing accreditation marks and formatting oddities that raise questions about authenticity [4] [5]. Independent confirmation is not shown in the collected sources [4].
6. Extraordinary claims, contested provenance and red flags
The patchwork of tests—imaging, XRF, SEM, thermogravimetric, AMS—comes from diverse actors (independent researchers, university labs named in media, and advocacy figures). Some outlets promote sensational interpretations (negative mass, active responses to sound, mass‑change behavior) and theoretical papers that attempt exotic physics explanations [11] [12]. Others warn of hoax patterns, document inconsistencies, and missing standard laboratory reporting practices [13] [4]. The sources differ on which labs actually performed which tests and whether raw data or certified reports are publicly verifiable [1] [4].
7. What’s missing and what to watch for next
Available sources do not provide a single, peer‑reviewed materials‑science report consolidating imaging, XRF, SEM/EDS spectra, TGA curves, isotopic ratios and AMS chain‑of‑custody; major claims hinge on partial reports and press summaries [2] [8] [4]. The story’s next credible steps would be: release of full lab reports with sample IDs and chain‑of‑custody, independent replication by neutral academic labs, and publication in a technical journal. Until then, competing narratives—extraordinary artifact versus elaborate hoax—remain supported by contested and incomplete documentation in the cited reporting [13] [4].