What laboratories or institutions performed material composition tests on the Buga Sphere and what did they find?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Multiple private teams and non‑academic groups have reported material tests on the Buga Sphere: X‑ray/tomography by Dr. José Luis Velázquez and Dr. Velásquez, carbon‑14 dating of organic resin at the University of Georgia’s Center for Applied Isotope Studies, and assorted metallurgical and microscopic examinations reported by investigators associated with Jaime Maussan and Steven Greer [1] [2] [3]. Results publicized in media and advocacy channels claim a laminated multi‑layer shell, embedded fiber‑optic‑like filaments, a hard alloy (claims range from titanium to an unusual aluminum alloy), and an ancient resin dated to ~12,560 uncalibrated radiocarbon years BP — but no independent peer‑reviewed, widely accepted laboratory report is available in the cited coverage [4] [3] [2] [1].
1. Who has been named as testing the object — private labs, universities and advocates
Reporting identifies a mix of named individuals and institutions rather than a single recognized scientific consortium: radiologist Dr. José Luis Velázquez (X‑ray/tomography), “Dr. Velásquez” (radiography), Jaime Maussan’s investigative team in Mexico, and Dr. Steven Greer’s network that arranged C‑14 tests at the University of Georgia’s Center for Applied Isotope Studies [1] [2] [4]. Coverage is dominated by proponents and private groups rather than independent peer‑reviewed teams [2].
2. Imaging and internal structure: concentric layers and micro‑components
Multiple accounts report radiographic and tomographic imaging showing the sphere is not hollow and instead contains three concentric layers, internal micro‑spheres and wire‑ or filament‑like structures around a central “chip” or core [4] [1]. Sources say X‑rays revealed no visible welds or seams, suggesting “seamless” construction in the available reporting [1].
3. Microscopy and filaments: “fiber optics” and resin samples
Investigators using microscopes reportedly found tiny holes filled with crystalline, hair‑like filaments that have been described as fiber‑optic‑type networks and associated resin that anchors them; teams say they removed resin for chemical and radiocarbon testing [5] [2]. The characterization as “fiber‑optic” appears in investigative reports and advocacy releases rather than in conventional materials‑science publications [5] [2].
4. Chemical and metallurgical claims: alloy type and hardness — inconsistent public accounts
Press and fringe outlets variously describe the metal as “similar to titanium,” an unnamed high‑hardness metal (330 HB reported on a Brinell scale in one account), or an aluminum alloy with rare earth elements, with no single authoritative metallurgical certificate published in the cited corpus [6] [3] [7]. These claims conflict across sources: some emphasize titanium‑like composition, others claim exotic aluminum alloys not matching known industrial formulas [6] [3] [7].
5. Dating of organics: University of Georgia’s Center for Applied Isotope Studies reported
Advocates report that the University of Georgia conducted C‑14 dating on resin samples and returned an uncalibrated age near 12,560 years BP; this finding has been widely publicized by spokespeople but has not, in the provided sources, been independently validated or published in a peer‑reviewed journal [2] [8]. Metabunk and other skeptical commentators note calibration and reporting issues in these announced results [8].
6. Extraordinary claims meet limited, non‑peer‑reviewed evidence
The reporting corpus shows strong claims — ancient carbon dates, materials beyond modern alloys, and optical‑fiber networks with “ultra‑low loss” — but these come from advocacy channels, preliminary summaries and online outlets rather than conventional peer‑reviewed materials‑science literature; no independent, fully documented laboratory report accessible in the cited set has yet established definitive, reproducible composition results [6] [9] [10].
7. Competing interpretations and credibility flags
Skeptical sources and investigators point to possible hoax, contamination, or misinterpretation: past controversies around some researchers (e.g., allegations tied to other “alien” artifacts) and concerns about sample handling and reporting practices appear in the available reporting [6] [11]. Proponents interpret the same tests as evidence of non‑terrestrial manufacturing and advanced materials [2] [7].
8. Bottom line for readers: what is proven and what remains open
What is documented in these sources: named X‑ray/tomography work, microscopy revealing filaments and resin, and a carbon‑dating claim from the University of Georgia — all publicized by private investigators and advocates [1] [5] [2]. What is not found in current reporting: a transparent, independently peer‑reviewed metallurgical analysis published in a scientific journal that fully confirms alloy composition or rules out contamination and fabrication (available sources do not mention a peer‑reviewed materials‑science paper or open laboratory datasets). Readers should treat extraordinary material claims as provisional until independent, reproducible lab reports are released and subjected to scientific scrutiny [3] [8].