Has the University of Georgia Center for Applied Isotope Studies released any primary lab reports on samples attributed to the Buga Sphere?
Executive summary
The claim that the University of Georgia’s Center for Applied Isotope Studies (CAIS) dated a resin sample from the so‑called Buga Sphere to about 12,560 years ago has circulated widely, but there is no verifiable primary laboratory report from CAIS publicly linked to those samples in the available reporting [1] [2]. CAIS’s capabilities include radiocarbon and stable‑isotope analyses [3] [4], yet independent coverage and archival searches cited here found only second‑hand statements and promotional summaries rather than an original, traceable CAIS lab report [2] [5].
1. The assertion being circulated: who says CAIS dated the resin and what they claimed
Prominent proponents, including Dr. Steven Greer and related outlets, have published or reposted claims that a resin sample from inside the Buga Sphere was submitted to CAIS and returned a radiocarbon age of roughly 12,500–12,560 years, placing the material in the Late Pleistocene/Younger Dryas interval, and some posts even state a “full lab report” is available [1] [5] [6].
2. What CAIS actually publishes and what the center can do
CAIS advertises a broad suite of services—AMS 14C dating, EA‑IRMS stable‑isotope work, compound‑specific analyses and elemental assays—which means the center has technical capacity to run the types of tests claimed in the Buga Sphere coverage [3] [4]. That capability, however, is not the same as confirmation that CAIS produced and released a primary report for this specific sample.
3. The independent reporting gap: no verifiable CAIS primary report located
Investigative and critical accounts noted that while Dr. Greer and several downstream outlets cite CAIS testing, they did not produce verifiable documentation from the university directly linking the test results to the Buga Sphere; those accounts explicitly state that “no verifiable documentation from the university links the test to the Buga Sphere” [2]. Multiple reposts and promotional emails repeat the CAIS attribution but cite the same original claim rather than an independently obtained CAIS lab report [7] [8].
4. Why that gap matters: chain of custody, methodology and contamination caveats
Even if a reputable lab runs a radiocarbon test, interpretation requires published metadata—sample IDs, pretreatment methods, contamination controls, δ13C fractionation corrections and uncertainties—that constitute a primary lab report; without those details the age claim is scientifically weak [7]. Analysts have warned that resin samples can contain mixed organic and petroleum‑derived carbon which can produce misleading intermediate 14C ages if not chemically separated and documented [7].
5. Alternative viewpoints and implicit agendas in the public record
Supporters treat the CAIS attribution as validation of extraordinary antiquity for the sphere and use it to buttress broader narratives about ancient advanced artifacts [9]. Skeptics and science‑aware reporters treat the same claim as unverified amplification because the public materials lack a primary CAIS document and because the chain of custody, sampling protocol and laboratory identifiers have not been produced for independent scrutiny [2] [9]. The reporting ecosystem shows an implicit agenda: promoters benefit from headlines tying a respected university lab to sensational ages, while critical outlets emphasize the absence of traceable lab documentation.
6. Bottom line: what can be stated with confidence from the sources provided
Based on the sources assembled here, CAIS is repeatedly named by proponents as the lab that produced a ~12,560‑year radiocarbon result for Buga Sphere resin [1] [5], and CAIS clearly has the instrumentation and services to perform such analyses [3] [4], but no primary CAIS laboratory report or verifiable document directly attributable to that sample has been located in the reporting cited here—so the claim that CAIS released a primary lab report on Buga Sphere samples cannot be confirmed from the available sources [2].