What documented sightings and photographs exist of the Buga Sphere and what do they reveal about its surface and scale?
Executive summary
Reporting and crowdsourced material describe multiple sightings and many photographs/videos of the so-called “Buga Sphere,” first seen over Buga, Colombia on March 2, 2025; investigators and hobbyists have published high‑resolution photos, X‑ray/radiological scans, and lab analyses claiming a seamless metallic orb ~20–50 cm across with engraved glyphs and a complex internal structure [1] [2] [3]. Coverage is mixed: some outlets and independent investigators present imagery and scans as evidence of an anomalous object [4] [2], while others treat the images and interpretations skeptically and note possible hoax or art‑project explanations [1] [5].
1. What sightings and photographs are publicly documented
Local eyewitness reports, viral phone video clips and paragliding footage purport to show a small metallic sphere flying in zigzag patterns over Buga before landing; outlets report that multiple videos circulated on TikTok and social media and that paragliders captured footage with high‑end gear [6] [7] [4]. News coverage (People, Fox News) notes that the object was seen on March 2, 2025 and later recovered, and that scientists and private investigators released photographs and X‑ray images online for public scrutiny [1] [8] [4].
2. What the published photos and scans reportedly show
Published images and microscopic/radiological scans are described as showing a polished, seam‑free metallic outer shell with engraved symbols or glyphs, a patterned surface with what some call fiber‑optic‑like traces, and internal concentric layers including multiple small microspheres around a central core or “chip” [2] [9] [4]. Investigators’ photo documentation reportedly included high‑resolution photography and optical microscopy to record external engravings and X‑ray/radiological imaging to reveal interior structure [2] [4].
3. Claims about surface features and scale drawn from images
Multiple reports and analyses cite consistent surface claims: no visible seams, engraved glyphs or symbols, and tiny drilled holes or dots interpreted as sensors; size estimates range from “about the size of a basketball” to roughly 20–50 cm (about 280 mm to 50 cm), with some lab writeups giving explicit ~50 cm diameter and weight measurements in the low‑kilogram range [9] [2] [3]. 3D modelers and hobbyists have used released photos and video to produce STL and Sketchfab reconstructions at roughly 280 mm [10] [11].
4. What the imagery implies about internal structure and materials
Analyses based on X‑ray and microscopic images asserted a multilayer construction: an outer metallic shell, a middle layer with porous/self‑healing claims, and a core containing 9–18 microspheres in symmetrical arrangement plus a central “chip” — interpretations pulled from radiological scans and microscopy reported by investigative teams [6] [2] [4]. Some commentators read fiber‑optic‑like networks in close‑up images and suggest signal wiring or sensors, though this is an interpretation rather than an independently validated functional demonstration [9] [4].
5. Where reporting diverges — skepticism and alternative readings
Mainstream outlets and skeptical analysts point out the lack of peer‑reviewed publications and that none of the reporting establishes provenance beyond local recovery; some scientists quoted called the object a possible art project or urged caution before declaring an extraterrestrial origin [1] [8]. Other sites and individuals make extraordinary material claims (e.g., negative mass effects, weight changes, unusual isotopes) that are reported by niche blogs but not corroborated by mainstream scientific literature in the provided coverage [12] [3]. Available sources do not mention independent, peer‑reviewed laboratory confirmation of nonterrestrial composition.
6. What the photographic record cannot (yet) prove
Photographs, microscopy and X‑rays can document appearance, dimensions and visible internal architecture, but they do not by themselves prove origin or function; assertions about propulsion, exotic materials, or energy fields rely on interpretation of images and isolated tests reported by investigative groups rather than broadly replicated, peer‑reviewed experiments [2] [4]. Several outlets explicitly frame the object as controversial and emphasize ongoing investigation and disagreement among experts [1] [5].
7. Bottom line for readers evaluating the images
There is a consistent corpus of photos, videos and scan images that document a small, smooth metallic sphere with surface markings and internal structure as described in multiple investigative summaries [2] [4]. However, interpretations vary widely: some investigators treat the imagery as anomalous and potentially nonterrestrial [4] [2], while other journalists and scientists urge caution and point to plausible terrestrial explanations, including art projects or hoaxes [1] [5]. For claims beyond visual description (exotic materials, anomalous physics), the available reporting does not provide independent, peer‑reviewed confirmation (not found in current reporting).