Have any researchers or organizations investigated the Buga Sphere sightings?
Executive summary
Multiple individuals and groups — from prominent ufologists (Jaime Maussan, Steven Greer) to university-affiliated labs in Mexico and teams claiming tomography and microscopic analyses — have publicly asserted investigations of the “Buga Sphere,” with reports describing fiber‑optic‑like wiring, unusual alloys and age claims [1] [2] [3]. Independent, skeptical reporting and long-form analyses exist that catalogue claims, note Maussan’s central role, and highlight debate over methodology and credibility [4] [5].
1. Who’s been named as investigating the object — and what they say
High‑profile ufologists have led much of the narrative: Mexican presenter Jaime Maussan organized public events around the object and hosted scientists on Maussan Televisión; Dr. Steven Greer has also been publicly associated with reports claiming non‑human origin [5] [6]. Mexican teams — including researchers linked to UNAM according to press snippets — and a Mexican engineer, Rodolfo Garrido, have been quoted describing microscopy/tomography findings such as internal fiber‑optic networks and layered metal structure [1] [2] [7].
2. What laboratory work is being claimed — and by whom
Multiple outlets report that tomography and microscopic scans found internal structures (holes, crystalline fiber optics, “maze” of fiber‑optic wires), three metal layers, microspheres and a central “chip,” and that several labs examined alloy composition [1] [8] [9] [10]. Proponents say these analyses point to non‑terrestrial or highly advanced fabrication [1] [9]. Some reporting also claims unusual environmental effects at the landing site and changes in the object’s apparent mass [1] [11].
3. Where mainstream science and skeptics appear in the record
Available sources show skeptical analysis and investigative long‑reads cataloguing claims, counterclaims and hoax possibilities rather than an unequivocal scientific consensus [4] [5]. Critical observers emphasize Maussan’s polarizing role — noting his history of promoting contested UAP claims — and urge caution even while acknowledging some institutional involvement such as UNAM being reported in several pieces [10] [4].
4. Academic and peer‑reviewed engagement: what’s found and what’s not
There is one technical paper on SSRN proposing a theoretical physics model that aims to explain the sphere’s anomalous behavior under a “negative‑mass” framework; it is a single author preprint, not a mainstream validated experimental report [11]. Available sources do not document broad, peer‑reviewed publications from large, established archaeology or materials‑science journals that independently confirm extraterrestrial origin or the more sensational claims (not found in current reporting).
5. Media ecosystem: who amplifies, who scrutinizes
Tabloid and sensational outlets (Daily Mail, Irish Star) and enthusiastic UFO platforms highlight dramatic lab findings and warnings that the sphere “proves” non‑human tech [1] [9]. Niche blogs and investigative authors produce longer, often more skeptical chronicles that map how claims evolved and how social media magnified the story [4] [5]. This split reveals a media dynamic where promoters’ interpretations spread widely while more methodical critiques remain on specialist pages.
6. What remains unverified or disputed in reporting
Key technical claims — definitive non‑terrestrial alloy composition, reproducible mass‑variation physics, and carbon‑dating that proves extreme antiquity — appear in some outlets but lack corroboration in independent, peer‑reviewed literature in the provided sources [3] [1]. Claims that UNAM researchers are investigating are reported, but available sources do not include formal UNAM peer‑reviewed papers posted in recognized scientific journals within the dataset [2] [10].
7. Motives, incentives and conflicts to note
Jaime Maussan and allied media ventures benefit from exclusive access and spectacle, an implicit incentive to promote headline‑grabbing conclusions; critics repeatedly point to Maussan’s history with contested UAP claims as a reason for caution [10] [5]. Commercial and documentary projects (television series, exclusive lab visits) are cited in multiple pieces, suggesting economic and publicity incentives that could shape how results are presented to the public [9] [1].
8. Bottom line for readers seeking reliable answers
Multiple groups and individuals claim to be investigating the Buga Sphere; several lab‑style analyses and a theoretical preprint exist in public reporting [1] [11]. However, the materials and extraordinary interpretations promoted by advocates are not yet represented in broad, independent peer‑reviewed literature in the available reporting, and prominent promoters with contested track records drive much of the narrative [10] [4]. Readers should treat sensational technical claims as provisional until confirmed by independent, transparent publications from established scientific journals (not found in current reporting).