What independent labs have performed follow‑up analyses on the Buga Sphere and where can their full datasets be accessed?
Executive summary
Independent follow‑up work on the so‑called Buga Sphere appears in a patchwork of preprints, blog posts and a dedicated repository rather than in a set of clearly identified, peer‑reviewed laboratory reports; several researchers have published analyses on SSRN and summaries have been collected in the Buga Sphere Repository, but explicit laboratory names and complete raw datasets are not consistently disclosed in the public record provided [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting that cites university-level carbon‑dating and multinational synchrotron studies exists but is either hosted on non‑traditional outlets or described as pending, leaving clear, centralized access to full, independently verified datasets unresolved [5] [6].
1. Who has released formal analyses or preprints about the artifact
A number of independent researchers have produced technical papers and theoretical frameworks treating the artifact as an empirical object, with Patrick Morcillo authoring multiple SSRN preprints that present detailed quantitative models and hypothetical biochemical/glyphic analyses of the sphere [2] [3] [4] [7]. These SSRN entries function as formal follow‑up analyses in the public record and claim empirical measurements and models, but SSRN postings are preprints and not equivalent to laboratory validation from established materials labs [2] [4].
2. What institutional analyses are reported and where those claims appear
Media and niche science sites have reported laboratory‑style tests—X‑ray tomography, microscopy, spectroscopy and Geiger checks—conducted during May–July 2025 and summarized in a compilation article, but that coverage lists procedures and results without consistently naming the full set of accredited laboratory facilities or linking to their raw datasets [8]. Separately, an online claim that the University of Georgia performed carbon dating is circulating; that claim is presented on a private lab site that calls for further independent verification, and the reporting urges additional labs to replicate results rather than presenting an open, centralized data repository from UGA itself [5].
3. Where full datasets and supporting documents have been collected
The clearest centralized access point assembled by proponents of independent study is the Buga Sphere Repository, which explicitly aims to “preserve and share downloadable files such as analysis certifications and other documents for independent study” and is presented as the main public archive for documents related to the case [1]. Several of the SSRN preprints by Morcillo and others are publicly accessible as PDFs and contain their authors’ data summaries and models, so those SSRN pages are practical sources for the analyses they present even if they do not constitute raw instrument output files [2] [3] [4] [7].
4. What the public record does not show — gaps that matter
Despite multiple reports of microscopy, CT scanning and spectroscopy, the provided sources do not document a roster of accredited, independent materials‑science or synchrotron facilities that have released full raw datasets (instrument logs, spectra files, CT DICOM stacks) under open access; one source notes that a multinational synchrotron analysis was expected later in 2025, but that outcome is described as pending rather than published with datasets [6]. In short, the public evidence is a mix of preprints, secondary summaries and a private repository; explicit raw data from recognized independent laboratories is not consistently available in the materials provided [8] [1] [6].
5. Interpretation and next steps for verification
The responsible conclusion from the available reporting is that follow‑up analyses exist in the form of SSRN preprints and compiled documents in the Buga Sphere Repository, and claims of institutional testing (for example carbon dating) have been published on non‑standard outlets that call for independent replication, but there is no clear, universally accessible set of full raw datasets from a set of named, accredited independent labs in the sources reviewed; verifying the sphere’s properties therefore requires formal publications or open data releases from recognized materials labs or synchrotron facilities, or direct links from the repository to raw instrument data that are not yet evident in the provided reporting [1] [2] [5] [6].