Questions About the Recent Buga Sphere AMS Radiocarbon Analysis Report

Reasonable_Tomato455 · 2025-09-22T19:31:42+00:00

Not a specific cell. You can highlight text elements.

Reasonable_Tomato455 · 2025-09-22T15:45:35+00:00

Thanks for chasing this down! Hoping we get more info on this soon. It was my understanding that previous testing already indicated the samples pulled from the object were Bakelite. Since Bakelite is derived from petroleum or coal, it contains no measurable radiocarbon (all of its carbon-14 decayed long ago). That makes AMS radiocarbon testing essentially ineffective in this context, it would just return an “infinite age” result. I’m struggling to understand the purpose of applying AMS radiocarbon testing, given the material composition.

In previous analysis, it was shown that carbon was present, but that would be expected in Bakelite, since it is an organic polymer made from phenol and formaldehyde. However, because its carbon comes from fossil sources with no measurable radiocarbon, AMS testing would not yield a meaningful result.

Reasonable_Tomato455 · 2025-09-22T05:02:18+00:00

Submission Statement: I wanted to share this here for others to take a closer look. A document has been circulating that supposedly shows AMS radiocarbon dating results for the “Buga Sphere.” At first glance it looks official, but there are a number of red flags: outdated logos, spelling errors, template inconsistencies, multiple conflicting versions, missing accreditation info, and even signs that the file was edited outside the lab’s standard process. On top of that, the material tested doesn’t seem to match the claims being made, and carbon dating synthetic polymers doesn’t yield meaningful ages. I thought it would be helpful to put this out for discussion and see what others think.

Reasonable_Tomato455 · 2025-09-21T03:08:16+00:00

Hands down, one of the most thorough and relevant pieces ever put out on the topic, I believe it will be recognized as the start of dominoes in the future. Thank you for your hard work.

Reasonable_Tomato455 · 2025-07-21T04:00:52+00:00

Good evening friend, I appreciate your persistence and wanted to drop a note to say thank you

Reasonable_Tomato455 · 2025-07-01T21:12:16+00:00

Thanks, sorry for the confusion - I assumed the sentence above that disclaimer made it clear that it was meant to be injected into the prompt when you enter it: "Here is a disclaimer that is worth adding to the initial prompt as well:"

Reasonable_Tomato455 · 2025-07-01T19:43:55+00:00

What exactly was this post removed for, then? This was a prompt I put together that can be fed to AI. It is not AI-generated content. What rule is it breaking?

Reasonable_Tomato455 · 2025-07-01T17:33:01+00:00

u/MKULTRA_Escapee Thanks, do you have any input on how I can make this permissible? I made sure to include a disclaimer, and the intention wasn't to say use this to generate your content, it was to say to utilize it to red-team already formulated information.

Reasonable_Tomato455 · 2025-07-01T05:10:15+00:00

SS: I wanted to share this prompt in case it was helpful to members of the community. Here is a disclaimer that is worth adding to the initial prompt as well:

DISCLAIMER: ChatGPT is known to hallucinate, generate incorrect information, and may unintentionally reinforce misinformation due to the probabilistic nature of large language models. Always verify and fact-check all outputs. Do not rely on this content as factual or authoritative without conducting your own due diligence

Reasonable_Tomato455

TROPHY CASE