Which museums have examined the Buga Sphere and released conservation or dating reports?

1. Who the press says has actually examined the object

Reporting attributes material and imaging work to university teams and independent labs rather than museums: UNAM researchers and tomography/X‑ray teams published interim findings claiming layered internal structure and a hard aluminum alloy ^[1]; popular pieces summarize scans and environmental observations compiled by investigative writers and blogs rather than museum conservation departments ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Where dating claims appear — and who announced them

Claims that organic material from the sphere was carbon‑dated to ~12,560 years are tied in the sources chiefly to announcements by private actors (not museums), notably Dr. Steven Greer, and to secondary outlets reporting those announcements ^{[2] [5]}. Independent posts and commercial copy amplify a purported University of Georgia test, but each of those links in the dataset appears in promotional or fringe outlets rather than as a formal museum publication ^{[6] [7]}.

3. What scientific institutions have been named in coverage

Coverage names universities and laboratories—UNAM (Mexico), university research teams, and laboratory facilities for tomography and material analysis—as the entities providing interim technical results ^{[1] [3]}. The sources repeatedly cite a planned or ongoing synchrotron analysis from a “multinational laboratory” expected later in 2025, but do not connect museum conservation departments to that work ^[8].

4. Museums: absence of evidence in current reporting

None of the provided articles or reports identify a museum that has performed conservation treatment, curatorial accessioning, or published a conservation or object‑dating report. Available sources do not mention any museum conservation lab issuing an official report or catalogue entry for the Buga Sphere ^{[1] [4] [3]}.

5. Which independent reports are being used as proxies for museum scrutiny

Detailed technical summaries circulating online (physical/material analyses, CT/tomography reports, radiological scan descriptions) come from science bloggers, small investigative teams and UAP advocates; these are cited as “analyses” in the coverage but are not equivalent to peer‑reviewed museum conservation reports ^{[1] [4]}. Critics and skeptics also publish forensic critiques online rather than through museum channels ^{[9] [10]}.

6. Competing viewpoints and credibility flags

Sources present competing narratives: some outlets treat the sphere as anomalous and publish extraordinary material, weight and internal‑structure claims ^{[1] [11]}. Others call the story a hoax or point to contamination, procedural weaknesses in dating, and promoter agendas—criticisms that emphasize non‑museum testing and the low cost or non‑standard provenance of samples ^{[9] [10]}. Several pieces flag Jaime Maussan and Steven Greer as polarizing promoters whose involvement raises credibility questions in the scientific community ^{[3] [9]}.

7. What a reader should demand from museums and labs going forward

The public record in these sources shows a need for transparent chain‑of‑custody, independent museum conservation assessment, peer‑reviewed publication of methods and results, and calibrated radiocarbon reporting. The dataset names university labs and planned synchrotron work as the technical routes forward—none substitutes for a formal museum conservation report, which the sources do not show ^{[8] [1]}.

8. Bottom line for researchers, collectors and journalists

Current reporting documents analyses from universities and independent teams, plus promotional announcements, but it does not show any museum having performed or released a conservation or dating report on the Buga Sphere ^{[1] [2]}. Readers should treat extraordinary claims with caution, demand published methods and provenance, and note that available sources do not mention museum conservation reports or cataloguing of the object ^{[4] [3]}.