The Disclosure Advocate Who Won't Disclose: Dr. Steven Greer's Buga Sphere and the Irony of Withholding Evidence

On May 8, 2026, Dr. Steven Greer returned to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. — the same room where, twenty-five years earlier, he had launched the Disclosure Project with a dramatic roll call of military witnesses. This time, he promised something bigger: physical proof of extraterrestrial technology. The centerpiece was the "Buga Sphere," a metallic orb he claimed was 12,560 years old, composed of "no known alloy," and capable of anti-gravity effects. The mass, he said, had mysteriously increased from 2 kilograms to 10 kilograms.

It was, by any measure, an extraordinary set of claims. Greer made them with characteristic confidence, backed by what he described as a detailed metallurgy report and a carbon-dating analysis from the University of Georgia.

But here's what he didn't do — what, for a man who has built his career demanding transparency from governments, is difficult to ignore:

The disclosure advocate, it turns out, had no interest in disclosing.

The Carbon Dating: More Complicated Than It Appears

Greer's first line of evidence was a carbon-dating report claiming the sphere was 12,560 years old. The document, which he presented at the press conference, was a one-page letter from the University of Georgia's Center for Applied Isotope Studies (CAIS), dated September 19, 2025.

A close reading reveals a more complex picture than Greer acknowledges.

The Sample Identity Question

The report header identifies the sample as "foraminifer" — single-celled marine microorganisms commonly found in beach sand and sedimentary rock. The data table, however, lists the material as "resin."

Some noted the "foraminifer" label as evidence that the sample was merely ancient sediment contamination — marine microorganisms that happened to stick to the sphere's surface, telling us nothing about when the metal object was manufactured.

A closer look at the data suggests the sample was indeed resin. The δ13C value of -28.65‰ is consistent with terrestrial plant matter like tree resin, not marine foraminifera (which typically register near 0‰). The laboratory treatment — washing with hydrochloric acid to remove carbonates — makes sense for cleaning resin but would dissolve carbonate-based foraminifera shells entirely. And the data table explicitly identifies the material as resin.

So the sample was probably resin. But here's what Greer doesn't tell you: dating resin associated with a metal object doesn't date the metal object.

What the Date Actually Means

The report measures the radiocarbon age of an organic sample — resin — at 12,560 ± 30 years BP (Before Present, where "Present" is defined as 1950). This is an uncalibrated date; calibrated dates for this time period are typically older.

But even if we accept the resin as genuinely ancient, several critical questions remain unanswered:

1. Where did the resin come from? The report doesn't say. It could be original material from inside the sphere, environmental contamination from where it was found, or residue from a manufacturing process.  No chain-of-custody was presented for this extraordinary "evidence."

2. How do we know the resin is associated with the sphere's manufacture? A modern aluminum object could contain ancient resin. Dating the resin tells us when the resin formed — not when the metal sphere was cast.

3. What about the sphere itself? Carbon dating cannot date metal. The only way to date the sphere would be through metallurgical analysis, documentary evidence, or archaeological context.

The report itself is straightforward and scientifically valid: CAIS received a sample, treated it appropriately, and measured its radiocarbon age. The result — 12,560 ± 30 years BP — appears to be a legitimate measurement of the resin sample.

But Greer's leap from "ancient resin" to "the sphere is 12,560 years old" remains unsupported. The report makes no claim about the sphere's age. It makes no claim about where the resin came from. And it certainly doesn't support the conclusion that an aluminum sphere — an alloy first produced in the 20th century — is twelve and a half millennia old.

The 102-Page Report That Describes Sand Casting

Greer's second major claim was a comprehensive metallurgical analysis. At the press conference, he stated: "the whole report is 110 pages. You can see the list of elements in there." The actual document is 102 pages, notarized in Mexico on June 5, 2025, and signed by Dr. Ignacio Alejandro Figueroa Vargas of UNAM's Institute for Materials Research (Oficio IR.BION.IIM.SV.EX.290525).

The report's conclusions are starkly different from Greer's presentation.

X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis identified the sphere's alloy as A413 — a standard commercial aluminum alloy "típicamente producida por colada en molde de arena" (typically produced by sand mold casting). The report describes the manufacturing as conventional industrial processes: three or more casting steps, with the northern hemisphere showing "una colada muy 'sucia'" (a very 'dirty' casting) typical of sand molds. The elevated silicon Greer touted as exotic is attributed to "granallado con carburo de silicio" — shot peening with silicon carbide, a routine surface treatment used in industry.

The hemispheres, the report notes, "no fueron unidos por soldadura convencional" (were not joined by conventional welding) — but this is presented as a manufacturing observation, not evidence of alien technology.

• • • • • • What the UNAM Report Actually Found

            • Alloy: A413 aluminum — standard commercial alloy for sand mold casting
            • Manufacturing: Three or more casting steps, typical sand mold process
            • "Dirty" casting in northern hemisphere (high porosity) — consistent with conventional sand casting
            • Elevated silicon from shot peening with silicon carbide — routine industrial surface treatment
            • Hemispheres not joined by conventional welding — manufacturing observation, not alien technology
            • "Possible presence of optical fiber" — but report explicitly states deeper analysis required to corroborate
            • Support material identified as bakelite-type polymer

Dr. Figueroa is a Professor of Metallurgy at UNAM's Institute for Materials Research, with credentials verifiable through his institutional profile. His report describes conventional sand casting and standard industrial alloys. The report never mentions extraterrestrial origin, anti-gravity, or unknown materials. It's the only independent examination we have.

The Mass That Shouldn't Exist

Perhaps the most physics-defying claim Greer made was that the sphere's mass increased from 2 kilograms to 10 kilograms — an additional 8 kilograms, a five-fold increase — with no material added. This would violate the law of conservation of mass, one of the foundational principles of physics. Mass doesn't spontaneously generate.

Greer provided no documented weighing methodology, no independent verification of either measurement, and no explanation for where the additional 8 kilograms of mass came from. The simplest explanation isn't anti-gravity or extraterrestrial technology — it's inconsistent or uncalibrated measurements, possibly taken with different equipment or under different conditions, or even measuring different objects entirely.

Dr. Garry Nolan, a Stanford immunologist who has been open-minded about studying anomalous materials, reportedly assessed the sphere as "99% likely to be a terrestrial artifact," according to Orbital Today. Dr. Julia Mossbridge of the University of San Diego was more direct: "Looks to me like a really cool art project." She noted that the sphere's seamless design is achievable through well-understood manufacturing techniques like superplastic forming or magnetic pulse welding — methods used in aerospace and automotive industries.

The Custodian Problem

The sphere's custodian is Jaime Maussan, a Mexican journalist and longtime UFO promoter. Maussan's credibility has been tested before — and found wanting.

In 2023, Maussan promoted what he claimed were "alien mummies" discovered in Peru. The story made international headlines. Then Peruvian forensic experts examined the remains and identified them as "dolls made from animal bones joined with modern synthetic glue." UNAM, which Maussan had cited as supporting his claims, explicitly denied endorsing them.

Maussan's Wikipedia page documents a long history of promoting questionable claims, from the "Metepec Creature" (identified as a skinned monkey) to various other "alien" artifacts that turned out to be terrestrial. He's not a scientist. He's not a researcher. He's a promoter — and the sphere is in his custody.

This matters because chain of custody is foundational to any credible evidence claim. Without documented provenance — where the sphere was found, who found it, how it was transported, who had access to it — there's no way to rule out contamination, alteration, or outright fabrication. Greer provided none of this.

Following the Money

Greer has long claimed that "$1,000 trillion" in suppressed energy technology is being hidden from the public. The implication is clear: powerful interests are keeping revolutionary technology from humanity for profit.

But Greer's own financial model bears examination. His CE5 Contact app sells for $9.99 on the App Store. His CE5 retreats cost participants between $2,500 and $3,500 per person. He produces documentaries, solicits donations, and operates Sirius Technology Advanced Research LLC — a company with estimated annual revenue under $5 million.

This isn't evidence that Greer is lying. Many activists fund their work through similar means. But it complicates the narrative of a man fighting trillion-dollar interests. The people paying for Greer's work aren't shadowy government agencies — they're his own followers.

In 2013, Greer faced accusations of diverting documentary funds for personal use. The allegations were never proven in court, but they added to a pattern of financial questions that have followed his career.

What Real Disclosure Looks Like

The scientific process isn't mysterious. If you have extraordinary evidence, you make it available for independent verification. You publish your methods. You invite criticism. You partner with institutions that have no stake in your conclusions, and you say so. Loudly.

Consider how real scientific breakthroughs work. When researchers claimed to have found evidence of phosphine in Venus's atmosphere — a potential biosignature — they published their data, methods, and instruments. They invited the global scientific community to scrutinize their work. Other researchers found problems with their analysis. The original team revised their claims. The process was messy, public, and ultimately productive.

Or consider the recent UAP disclosures from the U.S. government. However incomplete, they involved documented reports, released footage, and congressional testimony subject to cross-examination. The evidence wasn't perfect, but it was accessible.

Greer did none of this. He held a press conference, made claims that exceed what his own reports support, provided documents that describe conventional manufacturing, and moved on.

The Simplest Explanation

So what is the Buga Sphere? The evidence points to a straightforward answer: a manufactured aluminum object, produced by conventional sand casting, promoted as extraterrestrial technology by a man with a documented history of making extraordinary claims and a financial incentive to keep making them.

The carbon dating measures ancient resin with no chain of custody, not the sphere. The UNAM metallurgy report identifies common A413 aluminum made by sand casting — not "no known alloy." The mass gain violates basic physics and wasn't independently confirmed. The custodian has promoted hoaxes before. No independent laboratory has verified any of the extraordinary claims. No peer-reviewed paper exists. No university has endorsed Greer's extraterrestrial conclusions.

Greer's core irony isn't subtle. He has spent decades demanding that governments release their UFO evidence to the public. Yet when he claims to hold the most important piece of physical evidence in human history, he withholds it from the very scientific scrutiny he claims to champion. He demands transparency from others while offering opacity himself.

Dr. Nolan's 99% assessment may be generous. When the only independent analysis finds common aluminum produced by sand casting, the only dating report measures ancient resin rather than the object, and the only person with physical access has a history of promoting hoaxes, the remaining 1% isn't hope — it's the margin of error.

Greer had his moment at the National Press Club, twenty-five years after his first appearance there. He could have done something remarkable: submitted the sphere to independent laboratories, published his data, invited the scrutiny he claims the government avoids.

Instead, he held a press conference, made claims his own reports don't support, and moved on to the next event. The disclosure advocate who won't disclose has shown us exactly what his evidence is worth.

Works Cited

• Figueroa Vargas, Ignacio Alejandro. "Informe de Resultados ESFERA DE BUGA." Instituto de Investigaciones en Materiales, UNAM, Oficio IR.BION.IIM.SV.EX.290525, 29 May 2025. Notarized copy: Maussan Televisión, 5 June 2025, web.archive.org/web/20250809054220/https://maussantelevision.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/COTEJOESFERAOK.pdf.
• "Radiocarbon Analysis Report." Center for Applied Isotope Studies, University of Georgia, 19 Sept. 2025. Sample UGAMS#77967.
• "Peru 'Alien Mummies' Are Dolls Made from Animal Bones, Forensic Experts Say." CBS News, 12 Jan. 2024, www.cbsnews.com/news/peru-dolls-are-not-aliens-forensic-experts-say/.
• "The Buga Sphere Anomaly Explained." Orbital Today, 2 Nov. 2025, orbitaltoday.com/2025/11/02/buga-sphere-anomaly-explained/.
• CE5 Contact. App Store, apps.apple.com/dk/app/ce5-contact/id1499236474.
• CE5 Contact Training Expeditions — Registration Information, www.etcontacthub.com/confretreatsevents.html.
• Maussan, Jaime. Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Maussan.

Fact Checked on May 10, 2026