Mr. Mike Moore of Los Alamos, NM, sent to us by US Postal numerous photographs, two thin sections and a video tape of a sample purporting to be a meteorite from Mars, a terrestrial planet.  The video tape provides an extensive oral presentation of the chemical composition-analysis of much of the sample.      We want to start by pointing out an error made at the very beginning of  his meteorite project. Very early on in the video tape you say, that while walking on a Ranch with your aunt you saw a strange object on the ground, and since it looked out of place from surrounding material you said it must be a meteorite. And then you  wasted no time in saying it must be from Mars. This is a major mistake, because as we reviewed the tape it seems you first decided that the sample was a meteorite and then began weaving the data and your thought processes to justify your initial conclusion making its identification premature. When someone sees something strange or different on the ground, the first thing that comes to mind is usually not that the object is a meteorite, unless you are actually out hunting meteorites. This scenario is very similar to behavior by scientists who have made a decision seeking a result and then begin weaving the data and information to fit that decision. To us this means that you lost all hope of objectivity very early on in this project in seeking the truth.
    Mr. Moore, we are placing a tremendous amount of emphasis on certain aspects of meteorite identification because there are certain areas over which a scientist cannot mislead by pretending to be doing science or injecting some other motive.  While we agree with you from the literature, that there is probably wide variation in-on the martian planet, there is a minimum standard where you cannot seek to ignore or divorce yourself from the laws of physics in arriving at your conclusions. These rules of physics work hand in hand with all matter both organic and inorganic (chemistry), leaving us with no ability to separate one from the other, because one is used to describe the other. Were it from Mars, your sample would violate these laws of physics which describe the present  world.
    First, the sample appears vesicle laden in thin section, and consistent with this you say it is very friable. It is reasonable to expect, based on velocity and pressure, that if your sample arrived as such it would have exploded into thousands of little pieces prior to landing. As vesicle laden as it is, the escape velocity required to launch it from Mars would have annihilated the sample and it never would have made it to Earth. (See van Flandern, "Are The Mars Meteorites Really From Mars" a portion of which is reproduced below). You insist and say it is a different type of meteorite from the current Mars meteorites. But that does not matter because all meteorites are subject to the same laws of physics no matter what their origin or chemical composition.
Dr. van Flandern writes;

     Consider the analysis Dr. van Flandern is invoking as proof of one thing or another in his paper about ALH84001 and martian meteorites, and which applies to the impact event itself.  This means that in the case of a Martian Meteorite it should have some impact mico-fractures and in fact the larger the stony meteorite the more fractures you may see in the interior. Your sample is very large and you report no web of interior impact fractures, therefore it is probably not a meteorite. The smaller the sample the less likely one is to see impact fractures. Based on the laws of physics several things should have occurred for which there is no evidence.
    You implied on your videotape that one day your sample was not there and the next it was, meaning it was a very recent fall with respect to the timeline.
Therefore it should have a fusion crusted surface. A recent fall should have a fusion crusted surface while a heavily weathered very old find will have very little to no fusion crust. For the sample to appear as it does with no crust it  would have to be a very old impact to allow time for weathering,  but that places a very heavy burden on your timeline claims because it cannot appear suddenly in a week or so out of nowhere without a burnt surface. Because of its size, someone would have seen an object in the sky with a tail from the burning surface either day or night. In addition to the tail your sample is so large there would have been a sonic boom followed by a small crater or hole at the impact site. You reported no crater and showed no evidence of such in your videotape or even mentioned it. There were no reports mentioned around the time you found your sample, of objects in the sky and no reports of a sonic boom.

     Above right you see the weathering rind of the outer surface of BCC9601, the lunar sample. This ~1cm thick surface rind around the sample is a product of weathering at standard conditions on Earth. Exposed to hydration, atmospheric pressure, and temperatures different from original parent body for a lengthy period. Your sample should have a differing interior from exterior with the interior of the sample having a chemical composition derived from the parent body. The thickness of this rind will be a function of the chemical composition and length of time at standard conditions; a resistance to terrestrial weathering marker.
       Not withstanding chemical similarities, the rate of weathering is slightly different for all stony meteorites because they are all essentially from different places or different parts of the same source having their own composition, and all generally arriving at different times. In this case the sample above is lunar however, it only represents the portion of the Moon  from where it came. (Not the entire lunar highlands surface).
        At left you see a sample that is presumably from one of the Apollo missions. You notice that it is full of pocks and vesicles. Try not to focus on how the vesicles got there, that's another story. Very little of this sample would have survived in large pieces were it to arrive in the form of a meteorite, because the increased area and shape of the pockets would create lots of drag directly proportional to the surface area upon atmospheric entry causing it to rip apart.
    You say you hammered a copper tube through your sample and removed a round core, and that it was very friable and coming apart. We really must appreciate meteorites for what they are and don't think hammering a tube through a sample is a good idea. Nevertheless, we don't think we can hammer a tube through even our softest sample without it completely breaking apart, a very ancient carbonaceous chondrite.

    Suppose  the sample shown at left and broken below is meteorite excavated ancient sub crustal material from close to the iron core, and lets say for the sake of argument that we actually find small asteroidal fragments, and or cometary grains embedded in the sample by chemical analysis. Finding trace amounts of these in the sample does not necessarily make the entire mass a meteorite does it? While the sample shown here is very interesting and can be used to make or advance certain notions and hypothesis it cannot be called a meteorite even if it is a product of  meteorite impact activity. It has its place in history. Similarly your sample has very unique characteristics and has its proper place in history but unfortunately it is not a  meteorite.
     Consider the following, Mr. Moore. We have been working on a sample but have placed it on hold. The sample meets all of the geophysical characteristics of a meteorite but is heavily weathered. Two spot tests by SEM indicate an abundance of elemental Ni and it is very magnetic. However, Mr. DeRusse is not convinced it can qualify as a meteorite. He wants a separate analysis of opaque oxide grains found on the thin section to determine exact composition for  magnetite or a solution of Fe-Ni. We know that even though it meets all of the definitions and elemental Ni is not found in Texas this could be an anomalous sample or pseudo meteorite, but according to Mr. DeRusse cannot be called a meteorite without much more testing. Your sample does not meet a single preliminary test as far as we can see.

    Above left, the main mass of the sample broken to expose the interior.

    The creatures you describe in detail found in the sample and which you relate to Mars are from Earth. It should have dawned on you that when you saw microscopic animal life having no eyes and having unusual formations that, in fact, these are cave and cavern dwellers (needing no eyes since there is no light in caves) and that they are evolved over millions of years. These microscopic life forms were probably caught in your sample via torrential floods and commingled with hydrothermal and volcanic activity resulting in the sample in your hands. In closing we would like to make several points.