Talk:Klerksdorp sphere

Bias or what?
There is absolutely no info on ANY of the claims that dispute the "official" explanations. The criticism section almost seems to "attack" you (That is, if you dispute the findings that these spheres are of a natural origin) 91.110.104.114 (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree completely with your above complaints. First, the article contains material that disputes the so-called “official” explanation from a variety of sources. The problem is that the this material comes from unreliable sources such as books by Hindu creationists (Micheal Cremo), a porn magazine (Scope), supermarket tabloids known for publishing fictional news stories (Weekly World News), web pages authored of unknown qualifications by people using pseudonyms (Psybertronist), and so forth. If there is “There is absolutely no info” in 91.110.104.114's opinion, it is the fault of the proponents of the Klerksdorp spheres being artificial objects because they have not published any detailed evidence or arguments for the Klerksdorp spheres being artificial objects in credible sources, i.e. peer-reviewed journals, according to Wikipedia standards.


 * Finally, it neither an attack nor being biased to point out the arguments used by the above sources are based largely on a mish-mash of documented falsehoods, fiction, and misquotes of what people have observed about these objects. It is neither improper nor bias to criticize sources for not bothering to verify the veracity and truthfulness of the information that is used as evidence and, as a result, basing their arguments on either spurious or undocumented information. If people use misinformation and misquotes from porn magazines and supermarket tabloids in their arguments, there is nothing unfair about criticizing them for sloppy, inadequate, and unscientific arguments. In fact, they should expect to be criticized for such work.Paul H. (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be possible to satisfy both camps by publishing photos of all the spheres and the lab analysis. The facts always seem to be a matter of opinion and unavailable.188.220.186.57 (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Composition and Shape
Given that the Klerksdorp spheres consist of pyrite (FeS2), wollastonite (CaSiO3), and hematite (Fe2O3), I have deleted the term "metallic" from the article as being factually incorrect and completely misleading.

Similarly, given the fact that objects are not perfect spheres and are also disc-shaped and often intergrown with each other, I have also deleted, except in the proper name and where properly qualified with an adjacent, such as "flattened", the term "sphere" from this article. Calling them "spheres" is both factually incorrect and misleads the reader by projecting a false impression of the actual shapes of these objects.

Paul H.

Needs much better sources
Michael Cremo is not a WP:RS. This article does not conform to WP:DUE and needs WP:RS. We66er (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is true that the books by Cremo and Thompson, certain web pages, and tabloid articles are unreliable sources. However, they are needed to understand the origin of the claims made for the Klerksdorp Objects ("Spheres") and the proponents of these claims. Paul H. (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Klerksdorp sphere. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203164658/http://community-2.webtv.net/WF11/MysterySpheres/ to http://community-2.webtv.net/WF11/MysterySpheres/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)