From this diagram, we see that the known meteorites represent only a tiny portion of the rocks that have fallen on our planet since its beginning.  If you will look up for only a single hour on a clear night any time and any where on this planet, you will see a shooting star.  The amount of material that falls on our planet is enormous over time.  The planet was probably accreted initially from many rocks coming together to form our planet.  The planet being bombarded with meteors and meteorites is the norm and not the exception.  The problem is that mankind has only recently started studying these gifts from heaven and so has not yet come to a full understanding of what they really are and how often they actually fall. 

The next diagram shows the relationship of the common meteorites and all other meteorites.  The outer circle would represent the set of all meteorites we can identify.  The "common" circle would represent the subset of meteorites that are the common meteorites.  The smaller circle would represent the subset of meteorites that are from planetary bodies.  Both of these subsets are contained within the overall set of meteorites that have fallen.   I have left room in the diagram for other types of meteorites that we have yet to identify, but that would be contained as a subset within the whole set.

Remember that this entire diagram, would fit inside the orange area in the "Possible versus Identified Meteorites" diagram above.  Of the few rocks that have fallen on our planet, only a small percentage have been identified and most of these have been identified as "common" while a few others have been identified as coming from planetary bodies, such as Mars or the Moon.  There is still the possibility of other kinds of meteorites that we have yet to even imagine.  The basic rules of meteorite identification are designed to find only the common meteorites, which are merely a subset of the identified meteorites, which is a subset of the possible meteorites.   Obviously, these rules are not well thought out and need to be revisited immediately.

Pictures taken on Mars clearly show that the planet has many gray rounded rocks which appear to have vesicles, or holes.  For evidence, see the pictures above of the Martian surface.  This would be expected since we know there are volcanoes on Mars and volcanic material usually has vesicles where expanding gasses make "holes" in the rock as it hardens.   The current rules of meteorite identification completely ignore this class of rock, which we can clearly see exists on Mars and which the Frass Meteorite probably represents an example of this type of planetary meteorite.  Many of the round rocks on Mars appear almost identical to the Frass Meteorite.  They are generally round, with many vesicles, sometimes a crevice, sometimes they have red streaks and they all have butterscotch colored sand in the vesicles and flat places.  The Frass Meteorite has all of these features.  If one could imagine taking one of the Mars rocks and "dropping" it through out atmosphere, it would then look very much like the Frass Meteorite, in that it would have the sharp edges melted away and most of the sand would be eliminated, except for that sand that would stick to the outer surfaces as they were heated coming through the atmosphere.  They would then look very much like the Frass Meteorite.

My conclusion is that the present set of identification rules is inadequate and counter productive in finding planetary body type meteorites.  The rules have been developed to find a particular class of meteorites and no others.   For meteorite hunting to be brought to the stage of a science, they need to revise the rules of finding meteorites and start using logic in their approach.  The lack of logic in any scientific arena  represents a misunderstanding of the very rules of science.

As an example of someone not being aware of their assumptions, I once was called early in the morning to come over and repair a computer I had just sold.   The owner informed me that he had just bought the computer and it was already broken and that if I didn't come over and fix it immediately, he would return it.  I went to his location and examined the evidence.  He was flipping the switch up and down and said to me "See, it doesn't work."  I walked over to the wall and picked up the plug and plugged the computer into the electric outlet.   The computer immediately sprung to life and I apologized for his inconvenience.   The janitor had unplugged it the night before.  The owner's assumption was that I had been at fault, yet the evidence indicated he just had bad assumptions.   When I was learning to repair computer circuitry, the first thing we were taught was to check your assumptions.  This meant we always checked to see if the power supply had the proper voltages.  All computers are built on logic and this logic requires the proper voltage to be "logical."  The meteorite experts need to examine their logic, or lack of logic.

The next topic I would like to discuss concerns the evidence I have presented and the completely false way that it has been represented in the Treiman report.  This entire process of trying to get a hearing through my congressman and senators, was began in an effort to try to get uncontaminated measurements of the chemical makeup of the volcanic portion of the rock.  I spent months explaining this situation to Buck and I thought that Alan also understood, but apparently he didn't.  Dr. Treiman makes a long and eloquent argument comparing the chemistry of my rock to the basalts of the planet Earth.  The only problem is that there is a fatal flaw in his arguments.  We don't yet have any accurate measurements of the rock.  That is what Buck Sharpton promised to do and what I thought that Dr. Treiman had also promised to do, since we spent some time discussing the points I needed tested, while looking through his microscope at the sample of the rock.

Here is the reason that his logic is so flawed.   The Frass Meteorite was made by at least two separate flows of lava.  This is well documented and no one has argued that my age tests are not accurate.  The age tests show that one lava flowed about 50 million years ago and a later flow occurred about 13 million years ago.  A mixture of the two materials was dated at about 29 million years which acts as a control and helps verify the other two dates.  Both of these lava flows moved into a bed of sand and clay particles.  I have spent hundreds of hours looking at this material under my microscope, and there is no crack or crevice in the rock that does not have sand or clay attached to the rock.  This is easy to understand, because the lava would have been hot when it first touched the sand and the sand would have "stuck" to it. Also, "chunks" of sand would have been trapped within the lava as it flowed through the sand and clay that came to be inside the vesicles of the rock.  All of this is confirmed by observation.  Even the thin slices that Dr. Treiman showed me under his microscope, which are displayed below,   show that the sand and clay is contained in the tiniest of inner vesicles of the rock.  Thus every sample that I have had tested is "contaminated" by the sand and we yet have no measurements of the actual chemistry of the two lava flows of the Frass Meteorite.  The pictures below, show the amount of contamination of a typical sample.

I estimate that each of the two samples of lava (labeled Rock and Red Rock) that were taken from the Frass Meteorite are contaminated from 30% to 50% by the sandy material.   That is the reason that I have tried to get help.  The only tests that I have been able to get on the chemistry, require me to submit a sample of one to two grams, depending on the tests required.  The tests are done by grinding the rocks and then vaporizing the resulting material so that the elements are released and analyzed.   The material is then gone forever and no further tests can be accomplished.   This is the only method of testing available to me and one can see that it is not a good way to get the chemistry of just the lava rock and not the included sand. 

Dr. Treiman states that the Sand2 and Sand3 samples can not be used to classify against Earthly basalts because they are sandy material.  Yet the only difference between the Gray Rock, Red Rock, Sand2, and Sand3 samples is the degree of sandy material versus the lava material.  But once you examine the sand, you see that much of it is composed of volcanic particles too, so my claim is that virtually every particle in the Frass Meteorite was made upstream by the same volcano that made the basalts.  Thus all of these samples could be compared to Earthly basalts, if any of them can be.  The first picture below is a typical example of the"sand" of the Frass Meteorite and the second picture is the exact location where the Sand2 sample was taken.  The Sand2 sample was scraped directly from the rock and is as much a test of the rock as the samples labeled Rock and Red Rock.  Everyone agrees that the Sand2 and Sand3 samples plot Martian, which puts the entire rock in the Martian category, since the sand is a part of the rock and/or came from within the rock.   Thus the arbitrary elimination of the Sand2 and Sand3 samples can only be used to justify the quickly formed, but erroneous opinions of the meteorite "experts," and does not help in the actual search for the truth contained within the Frass Meteorite.

If you look at the first picture, you will see that the Sand3 sample was composed mostly of small pieces of lava rock, which certainly qualifies it to be accepted for comparison with Earthly basalts, if the Rock and Red Rock samples can be compared.  Also, one can see that the sample labeled Sand2, was actually scraped from a section of the Frass Meteorite and you can still see the scratch marks above, where the sample was taken.  One can only ask why these samples were disallowed, when I specifically selected these samples as being most likely to show Martian.  I was correct in my assessment, but their only defense is to "throw out" the measurements that they don't like.

The reason I contacted NASA originally, was to be able to get the proper chemistry of the Frass Meteorite.  As my letters at marsrock clearly show, I spent months explaining this problem to Buck and he agreed to help me.  He knew people that had another method of determining the elemental analysis of a rock such as mine.  This test uses an electron microscope and a probe that can be "pointed" to a particular place on the rock, so that we could get the chemistry of just the lava portion, and so that we would have a valid sample upon which to apply Dr. Treiman's elegant chemical analysis.   I pointed out all the points to Dr. Treiman that needed to be tested and I thought that he was going to do these tests since he told me he would be on the needed equipment the next week.  For the life of me, I can't imagine how a real scientist could have so little wonder at the miracles of this rock, to refuse to even get the proper chemistry, before the rock is then discarded as worthless to mankind.

As far as the sample labeled Red Rock, it is actually a combination of the gray rock (13 million years old) and the red rock (49 million years old), since the sample was taken before I learned the two ages of the rock and could identify the two different kinds of lava.  Thus we have no test whatsoever on the older rock, which I would predict would be the most like the Martian rocks tested to date.   I can't get a test, because there is very little of the red material available, as it makes up less than 5% of the total mass of the Frass Meteorite.  Also, if I tested these particles, they would be lost to science forever and I still wouldn't have a good measurement, since they are contaminated with sand and clay.  So the only way that I can get the correct chemistry is with the help of someone who works one of these instruments and who would be willing to measure the chemistry at the points I have requested.  Of course, from the Treiman report, one would never know that these problems exist.  For more than a year I have been trying to get someone to do these tests for me, so that we would have accurate chemistry to compare to Earthly basalts. Even so,  I'm still not sure how valid that comparison might be since we have seen so little material from planetary bodies.

But now I would like to examine the chemistry that I do have and see what chemistries that we could logically compare.  On Mars, we see gray rocks and red rocks and butterscotch colored sand.  On the Frass Meteorite, we see gray rock and red rocks and butterscotch colored sand.  On Mars, we recently watched the Pathfinder as it sampled different points on the Martian surface.  Each of these measurements taken on Mars would have been a combination of the rocks and the sand.   When I took the Sand2 and the Sand3 samples, I already knew about the results on Mars and I deliberately selected these samples to match as closely as possible the same situation that the Pathfinder would experience on Mars.  Actually the Sand2 sample is slightly mislabeled, because it could easily have been called Rock3, as it was a direct scraping of material from the Frass Meteorite.  The area where this sample was taken, was the area exposed when I took the first sample that was sent to Ron Baalke.  Thus, if the Pathfinder were to "back up" to the Frass Meteorite and take a sample with its probe, the values would come back exactly like the Sand2 and Sand3 samples, which Dr. Treiman says plot Martian, but he refuses to accept, since they are somehow different than the rock samples. Since the only difference between these four samples is the ratio of rock and sand, then either he must plot all of the points on his graphs, or take all of the points off the graph since we don't have uncontaminated measurements.   Again, we find that his logic is flawed and possibilities have been ignored.

Dr. Treiman argues that we have no "sand" control from the Frass Ranch.   But that is not true either.  The first thing I did when I decided to have my meteorite tested, was to go to the landing site and recover a sample of sand.  Later I sent a sample to the University of Arizona and they agreed that the sand at the ranch was much different than the sand in the meteorite.  The sand at the ranch is much more diverse in the types of particles and the sand at the ranch is not angular.    Also, the sand at the ranch doesn't have any volcanic particles in it, while the sand from the Frass Meteorite is mostly volcanic particles.  My documentation states that I never knew there was sand inside the meteorite until I took the first sample from the rock several years ago.  All of the original sand on the outside was either lost or stuck to the outer surface when the rock made its fiery journey through our atmosphere, so I never saw any fall out until I broke through this melted outer surface while taking the first sample.  Later, when Buck began helping me, I asked if he wanted to see the sand from the ranch and he said "No, I trust you."  When I met with Alan, I asked if he was familiar with the information on my web sites, which included my correspondence with Buck.  Alan said that he was familiar, yet no mention is made in his report of my efforts to make sure that no one would claim the sand came from the ranch.  Yet after three years of effort, Dr. Treiman has made so little effort to determine the truth of this rock, that he assumed the sand came from the ranch, when I have proved previously that his assumption can not be true.  Additionally, I even asked Dr. Treiman if he would like to take a sample of the rock, so that he could see the sand fall out himself.  He said that he had no need to take a sample.

Although I have shown that Dr. Treiman's comparison of the Frass rock to Earthly basalts may have little value, the comparisons are completely valid that I have made between my measurements and the measurements made directly on Mars.  Although Dr. Treiman never mentioned my model of the creation of the Frass Meteorite on Mars, it clearly shows that the sandy material was actually made "upstream" by the same volcano that later made the lava rock.   This means that this material can be compared to measurements made on the surface of Mars, since I have recreated the same environment when taking my samples from the Frass Meteorite.  Both the measurements that I have made and the measurements made by spacecraft on Mars are both examples of measurement of mixed materials, some sand and some lava.  So it is valid for me to compare the measurements that I have made of my rock against the same measurements made on Mars.  This means that comparisons of Sand2 and Sand3 versus Barnacle Bill, Yogi, and the other sand measurements taken on Mars are valid comparisons.  The Sand2 and Sand3 plot Martian on every test and are very similar to the actual measurements made on the planet Mars.

It is not valid for Dr. Treiman to compare my mixed samples with "pure" basalts from Earth.  Thus the entire section on chemistry has absolutely no logical meaning and no logical relationship to the Frass Meteorite.  We can't know that relationship, until the proper tests are completed and reported, and as of this moment, after three years of trying, I still don't have these measurement.  And my understanding is that these measurements are actually not that expensive and could have been done by any number of people, if someone had just cared enough to make the effort.

I have now shown that the rules for identifying common meteorites are not appropriate for identifying planetary meteorites.  The rules have been made to find only common meteorites and negate the ability to find new and important meteorites.   These rules have been applied to the Frass Meteorite, and as I have shown, most of my evidence was not even presented and what was presented, was misstated and inaccurate. I have shown that Dr. Treiman's logic is flawed, his assumptions are false, and that his understanding of the evidence was incomplete.  I have also shown that I never received the "fair" hearing which I have desperately sought for all these years. The truth contained within the Frass Meteorite deserves a better investigation than this.

In the next section, I will take Dr. Treiman's report and sentence by sentence, show the mistakes that have been made in the examination of the Frass Meteorite.

 

2.The Frass Rock.     The Frass rock is a rounded fragment of vesicular (bubbly) basalt lava rock, the most common kind of lava erupted from volcanoes. In color it is slightly reddish gray. A portion of the surface appears slightly redder than the rest. Physically, the rock is ellipsoidal, approximately 28 cm by 28 cm by 24 cm (Figure 2.1). On one surface of the Frass rock is rough, exposing countless bubbles (Figure 2.2). The largest bubble is 3 cm long, and most are - 1 cm long. In one swath across the surface, the bubbles appear to be aligned, longer than wide, and elongate in the same direction                           Figure 2.1. The Frass Rock. Figure 2.2 Innumerable bubbles on surface of Frass Rock, - 5cm across.   In both pictures above, the fusion crust is clearly visible as the darkened areas of the rock.  On the picture on the left, you can see the fusion crust along the entire top of the rock and across the bottom.  The fusion crust is over the entire rock, but the lighting is only right to see it in these two areas in this picture.  On the picture on the right, you can see the darkened fusion crust across the middle of the picture.  Everything that "sticks" out from the rock has melted.  The more it sticks out, the more it is melted.  Even the vesicles you see, are melted on all of their surfaces that face the exterior of the rock.   This is evidence that the rock was melted, after the sand was deposited, which basically eliminates the possibility that the rock came from Earth.  How could the rock be formed at two stages, 49 and 13 million years ago, and then get melted in the early 1970's while coming through the Earth's atmosphere and then landing on the Frass Ranch?    Most of the surface of the rock is bubble holes and the broken edges of basalt rock between them (Figure 2.2). Broken edges of the rock are brownish and coated with dust. Actually, they are coated with the sandy mixture that has been fused to the outside by the heat entry.  I have done experiments to see if I could "wash off" this dust and I can tell you that it is stuck to the rock and is not something collected on Earth. A few small areas (a few mm diameter) of smooth coating are visible. This coating is reddish black and slightly iridescent; I could not see any detectable thickness to the coating, and estimate that it is less than 0.05 mm thick. Other materials on the rock's surface and in bubble holes and clefts include: dust; fibers from fabric (red, blue, yellow, white); avian excrement (so identified to me by Mr. Moore); rounded droplets of grayish metal (which appeared like splashes of solder); organic fibers like roots or algae; a white fibrous closed structure, - 3mm diameter, that looks like a spider egg-sack; and fragments of beetles and a spider (collected and so identified by Mr. Moore).     By appearance, most of the volume of the rock is bubbles; its structure could be compared to the plastic and bubbles in a piece of Styrofoam. The Frass rock, according to Mr. Moore, weighs approximately 22 lbs., which implies an average density of approximately 1.1 gram per cubic centimeter. This cannot be correct, because I've told them over and over the rock is full of sand.  There is no way anyone can estimate the density of this rock, because they have no idea how much of it is sand and how much of it is the basalt rock.  I've brought this rock to NASA for tests to determine the truth within the rock and all NASA has supplied is opinions, such as the one above regarding density.  The density of the rock should be measured, not estimated.   Solid basalt rock has a density of about 3 grams per cubic centimeter, which implies that the Frass rock is approximately 1/3 basalt rock and 2\3 bubble spaces, filled with air.  These spaces are not filled with air, they are filled with sand.  The sand that was in the petri dishes I gave him, is the sand that fell out of the inner vesicles when I took the core sample.  The sand seems heavier to me than the basalt, so this fact would completely skew the conclusions made.  The density of the basalt portion would show it to be very light and thus is evidence the rock was created on a planet with a smaller gravitational field than the Earth's.  A true density measurement could me made almost without cost, and this is one of the things that Buck Sharpton promised to help me obtain.  The statement above concerning his guesses at the density of the material have no place in science.   Science is about the proposition of obtaining the actual measurements before conclusions about density are reached.  This proportion seems reasonable from the highly vesicular, nearly frothy appearance of the surface and the interior (Figs 2.2, 2.3).     Many of the vesicles (bubbles) near the surface of the Frass rock are filled with reddish or tan material, which consists of angular grains of quartz sand (to - 200m m diameter) (the sand on the Frass Ranch is not angular, thus his own words prove the sand could not have come from the ranch, even though that is his hypothesis) in a very fine-grained (<20m m) mixture of clays, hematite (bright red), and calcite (Figure 2.4). In one area, the clay/calcite mixture is roughly banded. Based on core sample prepared by Mr. Moore, the interior vesicles appeared to have no sand, and much less clay/carbonate than those on the outside.     This is totally false.   There is a simple explanation here.  The sand fell out when I took the core sample. All of the sand and all of the clay carbonate materials were in the petri dishes and containers that I showed him.   Each of the vesicles did have sand in it and I have pointed it out over and over, yet this report states that the vesicles do not have sand in them.  Not only did I point this out to Dr. Treiman, but I gave him a picture that I had made to demonstrate this exact issue. All of this is clearly shown in the video tape I made of the meeting with Dr. Treiman.   The lava portion of the Frass Meteorite is very light.  I would guess that between half and two thirds of the weight of the Frass Meteorite is the sand that is contained in all the interior vesicles.   Below is the picture I showed him to illustrate the contents of each of the larger vesicles in the interior of the rock.  I offered to take a sample in front of Dr. Treiman so that he could see the contents of the vesicles, but he said he didn't need to see a sample taken.   Then, after not witnessing a sample being taken to show that the vesicles are full of sand, he makes another completely unscientific statement, that the vesicles contained no sand.  I will be glad to take a sample before any audience at any time to determine the truth of my statement that all the interior vesicles are full of this sandy mixture, which I believe represents the sands of Mars.      Below is a picture of the contents of one of the vesicles.  On the left, the picture shows the contents of one vesicle just as  it fell out of the Frass Meteorite when I took the core samples.  The picture at right shows what happened when water was added to this sample.  This experiment showed that the sand has not been wet in the 13 million years since it was trapped in the lava.   The rock that came out of this was later tested at 49 million years old.  This rock shows little signs of weathering, yet it is older than the Himalayan Mountains.    None of this evidence was included in the Treiman report.    The reason sand fell from the vesicles when I took the core sample, is because this sand was dry when the lava flowed around it and "captured" it.  The sand was lying in a ancient water course and all the moisture had evaporated.  When the lava flowed thirteen million years ago to create the gray rock, the sand and all of its contents were trapped.  They haven't been wet since. Think about that.  For thirteen million years, this rock and its contents haven't been in a single rain storm or touched water in any way.  This was long before the species of human beings had even come to existence on the planet Earth.   I have done experiments with the little "clods" of sand that fell out of these vesicles.  Once water touches them, they fall apart.  If they had been wet since the gray rock was made, then these little pieces of sand would not retain their shape.  This information has been at my web site at marsmeteorite for over two years, yet it was not considered in the Treiman report. I digress here to discuss the core samples.  The main portion of the Frass Meteorite is made from the gray lava that is 13 million years old.  This rock is so delicate, that I could take a 1/2 inch piece of copper tubing and drive this tubing completely though approximately one foot of lava rock with vesicles that are filled with sand. (I would bet money there is no rock on Earth that is over 10 million years old, that has this delicate nature.  Of all the lava I have seen on Earth, I have never seen any that I could drive a piece of copper tubing completely through almost a foot of the material, as I was able to do with the Frass Meteorite.   This is evidence of extra terrestrial origin, yet it was not included in this report.)   The sand was much harder to drive through, as the rock itself is so delicate that one can break it with a fingernail.  If this rock hadn't melted around the outside when it came through our atmosphere, it wouldn't have enough strength to even hold me sitting on it.  I just don't understand how any geologist who has ever looked at a rock on the planet Earth and seen how quickly things are changed, could ever believe that the Frass Meteorite could stand up to 13 million years of the weather of the Earth, without getting wet or destroyed.  Rocks this delicate don't survive on the planet Earth for very long.  Also, one can easily see how sharp the edges are.  These internal samples can be compared to the outer samples which show the fusion crust.  These samples below have not had their edges melted and have many sharp and delicate parts. 2

 

Figure 2.3. Thin section (microscope slide) view Of Frass Rock. Five mm across, plane polarized light. Dark areas are basalt rock; bright areas are bubbles. Figure 2.4 Sand filling a bubble in the Frass Rock. 0.75 mm across, plane polarized light. Central area is babble, filled with angular grains of quartz sand is tan-colored clay plus calcite. Dark areas to left and upper and lower right are basalt rock; to left, not aligned feldspar crystals (gray).         The Frass rock was examined in a microscope slide, i.e. thin section (Figs. 2.3, 2.4). It consists of small grains (to 0.1 mm long) of the minerals pyroxene and plagioclase in a matrix of glass and very fine grained iron oxide minerals (<0.01 mm diameter). These extinction, and is probably mostly clinopyroxene. The plagioclase laths are commonly twinned according to the 'plagioclase' or 'sanidine' laws. Both minerals are commonly aligned in the glass. The iron oxide minerals are reddish, and so are probably hematite.     Mr. Moore has provided chemical analyses, purchased commercially, of the Frass rock. These analyses are tabulated under Supplementary Material. The two analyses of the bulk rock, labeled Red and Gray rock, are characteristic of basalt and are fully consistent with the microscopic examination (above). Specifically, the Frass rock would be classified as an alkaline basalt or trachybasalt (Figure 2.5)  See earlier comments that we don't yet have any valid chemical analysis.  His own description of the microscope slides shows that there is the sandy mixture in every pore and crevice of the rock.  The degree of contamination is shown in both slides above.  Also, his descriptions of the sand clearly show that it has no sandstones, limestones, or granites, which he later says disqualify the Sand2 and Sand3 samples as being basalts.  Thus he contradicts his own observations with his opinions.     Mr. Moore purchased three potassium-argon (K-Ar) age determinations of the age of crystallization of the Frass rock. These ages range from 49.0 million years to 12.9 million year. The oldest age was from the coarser fragments (+80 mesh = 0.04 to 0.17 mm), which had less potassium (2.2% KL O). This is not correct.  The older rocks are best identified by color, as they are redder than the younger gray rock which makes up most of the Frass Meteorite.  The older red rocks actually have smaller vesicles than the gray rock.  Here is a picture of the two different ages of of lava rock.  This picture has been on my web site since the day after I received the age reports.   Apparently Dr. Treiman didn't take enough time to actually identify the two types of lava.  As you can see, the older rock has the smaller vesicles, while the younger rock has the larger vesicles.  Also, notice the sandy mixture stuck to all particles. The small pieces of red rock that came from the inner vesicles of the Frass Meteorite show to have been in water, at least a few times.  The clay material was deposited around them, indicating to me, that the rock lay there first and then was covered by the clay when the two were in some kind of pool of water.  The edges of the red rocks have not been rounded, so even though they are almost 50 million years old, they haven't been tumbled in a creek, only wet in a pool.  This situation could not happen on Earth, but would be very common on Mars.  (This is further indication of Martian origin, yet this information was not included, and in fact, was grossly misrepresented by the Treiman report by his erroneous statements of the potassium content and misidentification of the two ages of basalt lavas.) On Mars, we see gray rocks and red rocks and butterscotch colored sand.  In the Frass Meteorite, we see the same set of circumstances.   Here is a picture that shows the boundary layer between these two types of lava and the butterscotch colored sand that separates the two.  This small boundary layer represents over 36 million years, where apparently nothing happened but a small amount of dust "blew in."  This is indicative of Mars and counter indicative of Earth, yet this evidence was not included in the Treiman Report.  The red layer (50 million years old) is seen at the bottom right of the picture.  The sandy layer moves across the picture from bottom left to top right.  The gray rock (13 million years old) makes up the rest of the picture.  During the time represented by this thin layer, the Himalayas moved from under the ocean to the highest mountain range on Earth.  Nothing seemed to have happened to the Frass Meteorite during this same time.  Clearly, this shows the Frass Meteorite did not originate on Earth. How could it be that the Frass Meteorite and Mars share this weird phenomenon?   I have proposed a simple model that shows how this could happen.  The red rocks were either made or turned red because they were in the presence of water, which oxidized the iron and turned them red.  Many of the gray rocks show streaks of red rocks.  How could this be?  The gray rocks picked up small pieces of red rock when the gray rocks flowed.  This is exactly what the Frass Meteorite shows and this simple model fits the other information that we know about Mars and actually answers many of the questions we are currently asking about the planet Mars. Also, since the Frass Meteorite, and probably all of the Barnacle Bill type of rocks on Mars, are very brittle and delicate like the Frass rock, this would explain why they become rounded so easily, as small edges would break off with any movement of the rock.  Then these small particles would eventually become dust, and since they were magnetic to start with, the would remain magnetic as dust.   Thus, the Frass Meteorite shows why there are so many round rocks on Mars, why Martian dust is magnetic, and why many of the rocks of Mars have red streaks. Here is a picture of the magnetic particles that came from within an interior vesicles of the Frass Meteorite. None of this evidence was presented in the Treiman report.  Not only does this evidence support the Frass Meteorite as originating on Mars, but it helps explain many of the things we see on Mars.  That is why the Frass Meteorite is so important.  It gives us a sample of Mars that, in some ways, details the entire history of Mars and shows that Mars is still in the process of dying.  To know for certain that life evolved on another planet is one of mankind's longest sought goals.   It is so hard for me to understand how the meteorite experts of our day could be so closed minded when it comes to exploring the gifts of our solar system, since these gifts can teach us so much about not only our solar system, but also teach us about ourselves.