Buga Sphere Carbon Dating

[NorCal Dave]

(Thread split from: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/recently-viral-buga-colombia-alien-metal-balls.14154/)

Just a bit of an update, as it appears UFO contact person Dr. Steven Greer, among others, has announced on Facebook that there is some sort of carbon dating of some resin on the Buga ball placing, at least the resin, to 12,000YA:

Astounding report about the resin in the Buga Sphere.

The University of Georgia - Center for Applied Isotope Studies - dated the resin at about 12,560 years old!!!!

Stay tuned for more information from Dr.Greer. We just got these results on September 19.

https://myemail.constantcontact.com...phere.html?soid=1109615552303&aid=ClbIh3ChNkI

While no C14 expert myself, I will note that regardless of what the report says, it depends on where the sample came from. Something that's not noted in the above results. Someone at UoG tested some resin and concluded something in it was around 12,000 years old. Where that resin actually came from is unclear, other than Greer's claim it was from the Buga ball.

Stay tuned, I guess.

 

[jarlrmai]

It says foraminifer sample

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera

Foraminifera (/fəˌræməˈnɪfərə/ fə-RAM-ə-NIH-fə-rə; Latin for "hole bearers"; informally called "forams") are single-celled organisms, members of a phylum or class of Rhizarian protists characterized by streaming granular ectoplasm for catching food and other uses; and commonly an external shell (called a "test") of diverse forms and materials.

 

[jdog]

It says foraminifer sample

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera

Foraminifera (/fəˌræməˈnɪfərə/ fə-RAM-ə-NIH-fə-rə; Latin for "hole bearers"; informally called "forams") are single-celled organisms, members of a phylum or class of Rhizarian protists characterized by streaming granular ectoplasm for catching food and other uses; and commonly an external shell (called a "test") of diverse forms and materials.

Yeah, it's the sort of material you'd find in certain types of beach sand or sedimentary rock. Like if something sticky hit some sand or former shoreline, it would pick up particles of rock and the tiny shells of foraminifera.

The foraminifera can be carbon dated because they take in atmospheric carbon and accumulate it in their shells when alive and C14 breaks down at a calculable rate. Other non-organic sediments in the sample would be relatively inert. You can date deep-sea sediments by this method, though the calculations vary for the ocean environment.

I notice the address is to "Sirius Techniligy [sic] Advanced Research LLC," which is Greer's organization and publishers of the CE5 Contact app.

 

[Gaspa]

Yeah, it's the sort of material you'd find in certain types of beach sand or sedimentary rock. Like if something sticky hit some sand or former shoreline, it would pick up particles of rock and the tiny shells of foraminifera.

The foraminifera can be carbon dated because they take in atmospheric carbon and accumulate it in their shells when alive and C14 breaks down at a calculable rate. Other non-organic sediments in the sample would be relatively inert. You can date deep-sea sediments by this method, though the calculations vary for the ocean environment.

I notice the address is to "Sirius Techniligy [sic] Advanced Research LLC," which is Greer's organization and publishers of the CE5 Contact app.

So, assuming everything is correct, likeliest explanation is someone used some sort of sand to mix some sort of clay, and it contains shells from things that lived 12,000 years ago.

And the presence of foraminifera in the clay (or whatever) points to made in this planet.

 

[JMartJr]

Yeah, some old forams getting stuck on your shiny metal ball does not somehow make the ball older.

And is silly and irrelevant to claims that it is a flying device used by aliens -- if they now want us to believe it has been flying around for 12,000 years and got some microscopic shells stuck on it way back when they were fresh out of the ocean and hadn't aged at all yet, and they've stuck on it all this time aging away but not falling off, as opposed to ancient forams having gotten stuck on it more recently, it does not add any support to their claim that it is an alien flying doohicky, it just makes us ALSO have to swallow that it is a super-old one.

It's just silliness.

 

[Maury Markowitz]

There's an active Reddit thread on the topic that adds some useful details.

Among the many issues, one that seems important is that these reports are widely available on the web. You can find and download any number of them. They are form letters that they cut and paste the results into. Even the signature is copied into the form.

The thing that catches my eye is that the text at the top says they are dating foraminifer, but the table and remaining text says it's a resin. The original claim is that this is the glue that is holding the fibre optics in place, which could be described as resin. But the text at the top, and the general overall form of the report, suggests this was indeed foraminifer, not some sort of glue-like substance.

At this point I'm beginning to lean in the direction that this might be a fabrication based on someone else's report on foraminifer that was manipulated to say resin in those two locations. I looked for such a report but Google, but while this did turn up web pages stating that they had dated foraminifera, I could not find the actual reports. I did find this one where they did the dating, and others like it, so such a report exists somewhere.

 

[Mendel]

At this point I'm beginning to lean in the direction that this might be a fabrication based on someone else's report on foraminifer that was manipulated to say resin in those two locations.

Would an AI system be able to generate a convincing fake?

 

[Mick West]

The thing that catches my eye is that the text at the top says they are dating foraminifer, but the table and remaining text says it's a resin. The original claim is that this is the glue that is holding the fibre optics in place, which could be described as resin. But the text at the top, and the general overall form of the report, suggests this was indeed foraminifer, not some sort of glue-like substance.

At this point I'm beginning to lean in the direction that this might be a fabrication based on someone else's report on foraminifer that was manipulated to say resin in those two locations. I looked for such a report but Google, but while this did turn up web pages stating that they had dated foraminifera, I could not find the actual reports. I did find this one where they did the dating, and others like it, so such a report exists somewhere.

I think the inclusion of Foraminifer is a mistake. The process described starts with washing in hydrochloric acid to remove carbonates, which would destroy the shells, which are carbonates (calcium carbonate). It seems to be a form letter, very similar to other examples.

 

[Maury Markowitz]

The process described starts with washing in hydrochloric acid to remove carbonates, which would destroy the shells,

In the other reports I found on foraminifer dating, this is exactly what they did. Yes, specifically HCl. They etched the shells using acid, so that the outer 50% of the shell was removed. This is to remove sedimentary deposits on the shell and get to the "original" material on the inside. Other references, like Woods Hole, suggest sonicating the sample, which is also mentioned in this report. Maybe this is something they do to all samples, but I don't think the etching is universal. The sonicating is likely more common.

Of course, "resin" is not a precise term and perhaps it's a resin of seashells, but I'm not sure what that might be except definitely not a glue for fibre optics.

 

[Maury Markowitz]

Would an AI system be able to generate a convincing fake?

Sure, but this doesn't seem to be terribly convincing. I'd at least expect an AI not to make basic spelling mistakes and use different terms for the same sample. Those look more like human error to me.

 

[Ann K]

People get wildly inaccurate carbon-14 dates if they use the method for dates outside its useful range, and that goes both for things that are too new as well as things that are too old. It sounds as if the University of Georgia only received pre-prepared foraminifera for examination. Measurement of the date of forams is not measurement of the date of the resin, but Greer claims the latter while his description shows the former. That, and the lack of information about where the samples were taken, strongly suggests an attempt to deceive.

 

[Gary C]

@Ann K - Q: Since you are an actual biochemist. Wouldn't attempting to carbon date any commercially available resin be pointless? An industrial resin produced from an arbitrary feed stock would not have a predictable C12/C14 ratio would it?

 

[NorCal Dave]

Interesting, according to the UoG CAIS website, where the test was supposedly done, foraminifera gets NO HCI treatment (?):

https://cais.uga.edu/facilities/radiocarbon-ams-facility/

At this point I'm beginning to lean in the direction that this might be a fabrication based on someone else's report on foraminifer that was manipulated to say resin in those two locations.

The problem, at least here in the US where Greer is making the claim, is that it's pretty easy to check. Just send the letter to the CAIS and ask them if this is their analysis of the Buga resin sample. Or at least a resin sample of any kind, given they probably weren't told where the sample came from, if it's a real test.

The same website lists 3 PhD level people, 2 Senior Research Scientists and 1 Associate Research Scientists. Maybe there are some post-docs working there too, but I'd think most of the other people are graduate level students, so it's likely 1 of the 3 listed PhD scientists would have done this test. No need for actual names here, but they're easy to find and ask.

If it's a cobbled together fraud, that's going to get out, probably sooner than later.

 

[Trailblazer]

The thing that catches my eye is that the text at the top says they are dating foraminifer, but the table and remaining text says it's a resin.

My feeling is that it could be shoddy cutting and pasting at the UGA lab. Looking at the other reports sent by Dr Cherkinsky, he seems to copy and paste standard sentences as needed for each report (see the variations in font size etc). So it might be an oversight in failing to edit the formanifer mention out when compiling the report.

The letter clearly hasn't been read carefully before sending, as there are numerous typing errors ("Technilogy" in the address, a double space after "received" in the first sentence, "bathe" for "bath", "at the room Temperature" instead of "at room temperature", and so on).

 

[Trailblazer]

I notice the address is to "Sirius Techniligy [sic] Advanced Research LLC," which is Greer's organization and publishers of the CE5 Contact app.

The less redacted version shows the addressee as Mrs [Raven] Nabulsi, who is Steven Greer's personal assistant and has appeared on the CE5 podcast.

It is signed by Alexander Cherkinsky, although it's not a pen signature, it's the same digital signature used on other reports found online that were written by him.

 

[NorCal Dave]

My feeling is that it could be shoddy cutting and pasting at the UGA lab. Looking at the other reports sent by Dr Cherkinsky, he seems to copy and paste standard sentences as needed for each report (see the variations in font size etc). So it might be an oversight in failing to edit the formanifer mention out when compiling the report.

The letter clearly hasn't been read carefully before sending, as there are numerous typing errors ("Technilogy" in the address, a double space after "received" in the first sentence, "bathe" for "bath", "at the room Temperature" instead of "at room temperature", and so on).

That may not look good. The Dr. ended up testing stuff from Maussan's Buga Ball, then fired off a poorly cobbled together report that's being flashed all over social media. At least in the UFO world.

 

[Mick West]

@Ann K - Q: Since you are an actual biochemist. Wouldn't attempting to carbon date any commercially available resin be pointless? An industrial resin produced from an arbitrary feed stock would not have a predictable C12/C14 ratio would it?

They probably sampled some kind of paint or filler that was used to make the lines and holes look dark. That kind of material can be a mix of natural tree resin (which still has measurable radiocarbon) and petroleum-based products (which don't). If you mix the two, you get a misleading 'middle-aged' radiocarbon result. The carbon isotope value won't necessarily give it away. To check properly, you'd need extra tests to separate the ingredients, which don't seem to have been done here.

 

[Ann K]

@Ann K - Q: Since you are an actual biochemist. Wouldn't attempting to carbon date any commercially available resin be pointless? An industrial resin produced from an arbitrary feed stock would not have a predictable C12/C14 ratio would it?

Disclaimer: I'm not experienced in radiochemistry.

Good question, but that would depend upon the source of the material. The idea behind carbon dating is that an organic material, made from living matter, takes up atmospheric carbon until its death, after which it begins to decay in a predictable fashion. But if something is made using derivatives from oil or coal, it is already much, much older than the useful range of C14 dates and we would expect no measurable decay products. Ancient resins might be based on something like pine tar, which is what I'd expect to find if it were really thousands of years old.

But, as the paper from U. Georgia says, they tested the foraminifera that were prepared and sent to them, not the resin at all.

 

[JMartJr]

Sr. Maussan seems to get shells of ancient marine plankton all over his alien artifacts a lot these days. First the Diatomaceous Earth on his alien mummies, now this...

 

[FatPhil]

Sr. Maussan seems to get shells of ancient marine plankton all over his alien artifacts a lot these days. First the Diatomaceous Earth on his alien mummies, now this...

The pyramids themselves are built from the shells of such critters.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

I can't speak about 14C but about the stable carbon isotope ratio δ13C. The report states that 13C/12C and 18O/16O were measured seperately using IRMS on a gas bench. I assume this was done to correct the 14C measurement for isotope fractionation.

Curiously, we learn nothing about the oxygen isotope ratios at all, but δ13C is given with -28.60‰ vs. PDB (Pee Dee Belemnite, a standard with an extremely positive 13C/12C ratio). The measured value is extremely low and rules out fossil foraminifera. Even living foraminifera typically exhibit less negative values around -20‰, though samples from the antarctic ocean can reach δ13C values below -32‰
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9386020/

However, this is only because of shell-bound organic matter. Fossil foraminifera tests consisting of calcite or aragonite closely resemble the δ13C of seawater dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) which only deviates from zero by a few per mil.

Carbon isotope data for the planktic species are in the range of 1.3‰ to 2.7‰ and −1.8‰ to 1.4‰ for calcitic benthic species. Higher δ13C values of 2.5‰ to 3.3‰ are found for aragonitic benthics.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377839813000339

This concerns mesozoic samples. While positive and negative δ13C excursions occurred withing geological time-scales, they never reached such extreme values as in the sample. During the Last Glacial Maximum, roughly in the time-frame of the measured age of the sample, marine DIC δ13C would have been slightly lower than today, but in the range of a fraction of a per mil, not 20.

Our updated best estimate of LGM-to-modern global δ13C DIC change is 0.32 ± 0.20‰ at the 2s uncertainty level.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379115300779

This means this sample cannot have consisted of fossil foraminifera regardless of their age, which would not make sense in context of the spheres anyway. It must have been 'resin', whatever that means.

The expected δ13C value for both natural and synthetic resins would also fall into the measured range of −28.65‰.
Therefore if the report is not completely faked, it was likely some sort of 'resin' that was measured.

The report only initially speaks of foraminifera samples (plural), but we receive a single data point for a 'resin sample'. I'm not familiar with resins but I guess it does make sense to remove possible carbonate contaminants with HCL in an archaeological setting.

So not sure what to make of this, the values make no sense for foraminifera, as Mick said, you can prepare 'resin' with any desired C14 date from mixing recent plant based and petrol-based components.

 

[FatPhil]

I'm not sure that carbon dating would be the first test I'd run - why didn't they test what it was composed of first (both at the elemental level and the molecular level), before seeing how long ago any living matter in it stopped its carbon intake, which seems like putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Yes, you could screen a sample with a non-destructive method like FTIR (Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy) to get an idea what its composed of, though I admit I have no experience with this. GC-MS would be my method of choice to identify biomarkers.

Looking at the report again, we have a pMC value of 20.94 +/-0.08 standard deviation. So clearly several samples have been analyzed in the AMS for 14C but apparently only one with IRMS for δ13C. I don't think it's good scientific practice to omit the number of samples.

pMC (percent modern carbon) expresses the fraction of 14C in a sample relative to a modern reference, in this case the oxalic acid I standard (NBS SRM 4990). Which is odd, I am not too familiar with radiocarbon dating but to my knowledge, this is the original standard long outdated and has been replaced by newer ones like NIST SRM 4990‑C.

The lab claims to have an ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation, following the standard method ASTM D6866
https://cais.uga.edu/about/iso-accreditation/

ASTM D6866 demands the following reference standards:

Reference standards, available to all laboratories practicing these test methods, must be used properly in order that traceability to the primary carbon isotope standards are established, and that stated uncertainties are valid. The primary standards are SRM 4990C (oxalic acid) for 14C and RM 8544 (NBS 19 calcite) for 13C. These materials are available for distribution in North America from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

https://store.astm.org/d6866-22.html

In contrast, this analysis uses NBS SRM 4990 for 14C and PDB for 13C. Both are old standards.

Also the CAIS page lists 2 AMS units. A 250 kV and a 500 kV one. The report speaks of 0.5 MeV, which would be the latter.

The 500 kV NEC 1.5SDH-1 pelletron (CAMS) is a tandem accelerator equipped with a 134-cathode MC-SNICS negative ion source. During the AMS measurement, negative ions of carbon isotopes 12​C, 13​C and 14​C are sequentially injected and accelerated towards the positive high voltage terminal. At the terminal, the negative ions undergo charge exchange collisions with argon gas atoms and become positive ions. The repulsion between the positive ions and the terminal causes further acceleration of the ions to a total energy of 1 MeV. After acceleration, each isotope is mass separated by magnetic field. 12​C and 13​C beams are measured in Faraday cups whereas the rare isotope 14​C is measured using a particle detector.

This machine can detect all 3 carbon isotopes at once, (which is pretty cool), hence there should be no need to do an extra IRMS sample run to determine the 13C/12C stable isotope ratio to compensate for isotopic fractionation. There is no mentioning of any capabilities for 18O/16O measurements on the home page and while it makes sense for foraminifera-related research, there is no reason to look at oxygen in relation to radiocarbon dating as it is mentioned in the report. The whole thing looks odd. I hope the university replies and clarifies if the report is real.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

I found another report signed by Alexander Cherkinsky.
https://web.corral.tacc.utexas.edu/arctos-s3/aren/2021-06-15/UAM_Mamm_63998_carbon_date.pdf

They indeed appear to routinely use Oxalic Acid I as standard. There's nothing wrong with this per se, I just thought this material had been completely consumed decades ago (it was made in 1955), which is why new standards like NIST SRM 4990‑C were created. Maybe they have some leftovers they use for commercial samples? Or is it a mistake? In any case, those reports are odd for a high-profile radiocarbon dating facility and in disagreement to their own ISO certification. There are several spelling mistakes in both reports, the exact model of the AMS and IRMS units are not given, and you receive an uncalibrated result (in radiocarbon years before 1950) you gotta calibrate yourself?

The CAIS radiocarbon dating page says

We are happy to include calibrated calendar ages in your report. There is no charge for this service.

Why was this not done? It's not a trivial step for a layman to do at home.
https://cais.uga.edu/analytical-services/

Also for foraminifera, they routinely measure δ18O by IRMS, which makes sense. This is also mentioned in the Buga report, but we get no data. I have the feeling the lab just sloppily copy-pastes reports and changes the data. This is how we got the foraminifera mixed in. Not exactly a good and reassuring practice. OK, the cost of $450 is surprisingly low, guess you get what you pay for.

As the Buga resin results are uncalibrated 14C years BP (in radiocarbon dating, that's before 1950, not before 2025), and without calibration age is increasingly underestimated over time, it would make the sample significantly older than stated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_calibration

I asked Claude Haiku to do a calibration with the IntCal20, northern hemisphere, wood calibration curve, which results in an age of 14,510 ± 110 years with a 95% probability. ChatGPT 5 mini gives a significantly younger age of 13,266 ± 55 years. No idea how correct those estimates are, the paid AI models probably give more trustworthy results. But in any case the calibrated age should significantly exceed the uncalibrated result at this time scale.

 

[Montauk]

Looks like John Greenwald has just got around to posting about these "results":

A lot of people have asked since I posted Dr. Steven Greer's update on the "Buga Sphere" yesterday, where the actual carbon dating results are. These were published last month, but seems to have been largely missed by many. So, here are those, alleged, results from the samples. I have no [sic] independently verified, but know many have shared these results as the ones tied to the analysis Dr. Greer refers to.

He then offers an interesting clarification on his posting rationale.

This is posted without my endorsement. I don't have a full take [yet], as I am not directly involved in this research nor seen any of it with my own eyes. I believe in keeping my followers informed of the more major headlines from influential voices in this space, despite levels of controversy or my personal belief. I don't run an echo chamber of only posting what I want you to see or highlight only what I personally believe. I run a site that encourages dialogue, transparency, and the sharing of information freely for others to make up their own mind on controversial topics. Although I still post my opinion from time to time, and I have zero issue calling out blatant grifters and scammers, I will still share information when I feel important to do so. So, to the social media police who love to tell me how to run my own page: Don't let the door hit ya, where the good Lord split ya, on your way out.

 

[HVF]

I merely have a general question about the Buga Sphere itself. If it came from outer space, would it not have significant burn marks from re-entry? And, given its relatively small size, would it have not burned up completely as it fell? It seems to me that lacking any evidence of scorching, the sphere, which some call a piece of art, is terrestrial, not extraterrestrial. This is a question that's been bugging me, so to speak.

 

[FatPhil]

I merely have a general question about the Buga Sphere itself. If it came from outer space, would it not have significant burn marks from re-entry? And, given its relatively small size, would it have not burned up completely as it fell? It seems to me that lacking any evidence of scorching, the sphere, which some call a piece of art, is terrestrial, not extraterrestrial. This is a question that's been bugging me, so to speak.

Wouldn't an aluminium alloy melt at reentry temperatures? Al melts well below 1000K, and reentry temperatures can be well into the thousands. I'm not even sure it wouldn't boil! So, yes, it would have not made the trip unharmed. However, one has to remember that the buga sphere is magic, and so it will do a magical thing upon reentry rather than what you'd expect from normal science.

 

[John J.]

If it came from outer space, would it not have significant burn marks from re-entry? And, given its relatively small size, would it have not burned up completely as it fell?

I guess the sphere "believers" would claim it made a controlled descent, had a protective force-field or was released from a flying saucer that had already entered the atmosphere. Or something. Some untestable explanation along the lines of "Sufficiently advanced technology".

Arthur C. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws); some supporters of improbable UFO-related claims exploit this to propose seemingly magical, physics-defying happenings/ properties are evidence of advanced technology, alluded to by @FatPhil above.

The Buga sphere doesn't appear to demonstrate any technology or properties* not available to a provincial metalworking/ engraving shop; the videos require camphones and some fishing line.

*If we discount the rather silly, almost certainly misleading videos staged by its owners.

 

[Mendel]

I guess the sphere "believers" would claim it made a controlled descent

The Mars rovers made it down as well, and don't look it.

 

[Ann K]

Arthur C. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

The word "supernatural" is often used as a sort-of-synonym for "magic" or "miracle", with the added connotation of "so you skeptics won't find any physical evidence for it, nyah nyah nyah!" Easy claim to make, as it covers all bases and absolves the claimant of having to prove anything at all.

 

[Mendel]

Advanced technology breaks down in ways magic doesn't.