Has the University of Georgia CAIS publicly released any lab reports or sample accession records for the Buga Sphere?
Executive summary
The available reporting does not show any verifiable, official lab report or sample accession record publicly released by the University of Georgia’s Center for Applied Isotope Studies (CAIS) that can be independently tied to the so‑called “Buga Sphere” sample; claims that CAIS tested the resin and produced a 12,560‑year date exist in circulated documents and secondary reporting, but multiple independent reviewers and local reporters find no authoritative CAIS confirmation and flag inconsistencies in the circulated paperwork [1] [2] [3]. The university’s CAIS pages describe the kinds of analyses they perform but contain no published accession or formal report for this object in the sources reviewed [4] [5].
1. The central claim and who published it
Public claims that CAIS dated a resin sample from the Buga Sphere to about 12,560 years ago were promoted by proponents publishing summaries and a document circulating online, notably in material linked to Dr. Steven Greer, which states a resin sample was “submitted to the Center for Applied Isotope Studies at the University of Georgia” and that a full lab report is available in the post [1]. Additional outlets and social posts amplified the same conclusion and images purporting to be UGA testing results [6] [7].
2. What CAIS says it does — and what that does not prove
CAIS openly advertises that it offers radiocarbon (14C) analyses by AMS and a range of isotope services on its website, establishing that the laboratory performs the kinds of tests being claimed in the Buga narratives [4] [5]. That institutional capability, however, is not evidence that CAIS performed this particular analysis or that it published a corresponding accession record: the service descriptions do not include or imply a public database of every sample or a publicly posted lab report for specific external submissions in the sources reviewed [4] [5].
3. Independent scrutiny of the circulated “report” raises red flags
Skeptical analysts and independent reviewers have catalogued multiple anomalies in the circulated document that purported to be a CAIS report: inconsistent phrasing compared to typical CAIS submissions, use of an outdated university logo, unusual template changes, spacing errors, and omission of phrasing CAIS typically uses — issues that undermine the document’s authenticity absent corroboration from the laboratory itself [2]. Forum discussion and scrutinizing commentators also recommend contacting CAIS directly to verify whether a given document was produced by the lab, suggesting the posted file is insufficient as standalone proof [8].
4. News and reportage find no verifiable confirmation from CAIS or UNAM
Multiple reporting efforts attempting to verify the claims reached out to the named institutions or searched for official confirmation and found none: a regional report observed that neither the University of Georgia nor Mexico’s UNAM had publicly confirmed involvement in analysis of the sphere, while the author who contacted both institutions reported no response or no verification as of publication [3]. Conversely, some outlets repeated the CAIS attribution without presenting direct CAIS documentation, demonstrating a split between primary institutional confirmation and secondary amplification [7].
5. What can be concluded from the available evidence
Based solely on the sources provided, there is no verifiable, official CAIS lab report or publicly available sample accession record that can be unambiguously tied to the Buga Sphere; strong claims and images circulating online exist, but they are either unverified reproductions or documents with stylistic and procedural anomalies noted by document reviewers and independent analysts [1] [2] [3] [8]. The CAIS website confirms capability to run such tests but does not function, in the material reviewed, as a public archive that would replace direct confirmation from the lab [4] [5].
6. Alternate explanations and next steps for verification
Alternative readings of the situation include: (a) CAIS did perform a test and the lab has not publicly released or been queried about an accession record in venues cited by these sources; (b) an authentic CAIS report was circulated but later found to have formatting anomalies during independent review; or (c) the circulated document is inauthentic and the attribution is incorrect — the reporting reviewed documents critics’ technical checks and journalistic queries but found no definitive laboratory confirmation either way [2] [3] [8]. The responsible verification route, repeatedly recommended by analysts in the sources, is to obtain direct written confirmation from CAIS (e.g., a CV‑numbered report, accession statement, or explicit press release) or a statement from the university that cites a specific sample and report number; none of those items appear in the provided reporting [2] [3].