I feel like nobody is going to want to accept this, but I have been saving it for a while now for exposure to the public. I think this is a meteorite without chemical data, and I doubt with certainty that someone here will be able to explain rationally what this is without saying it is extra terrestrial.
This is an oblong, flat, glypted, crusted pice of material. One side is smoother and one side is rocky. You can tell it is crusted because the interior is a completely different color than the tan crust. It has cracks, but it does not fall apart. It is magnetic throughout in different amounts and it has rusty spots. It is a brecciated matrix and that suggests collision. These are all meteoric features, some would say that they are "characteristic" of meteorites. It has giant clasts that are vesicular. This looks like a meteorite from an impact on a body with no atmosphere. The giant clasts are meteorites in a meteorite. The clasts seem to be glypted with the rest of the matrix. The giant clasts are different magnetism than the matrix. One of the giant clasts repels a neodymium magnet on it's sides!
Please don't tell me this is slag, please dont tell me this is pavement. It was in the ground. It was far too heavy to have been put there by a person. The giant clasts were around the area, from breaking up and shock from impact. They don't make roads with giant vesicular clasts. They don't put giant pieces of slag on the surface of cement. This is 1 million percent not man-made. The sides would have had to be broken to get it to have this kind of shape, snd there is no evidence this was broken up all around on the sides.
This has to be a meteorite, and I want to give it to science. I don't want to have to have this be the first one I sell. But like I said, I have to commission more research. Using the internet and digital images to identify a chemical is farfetched. I am not trying to prove the reality through people's opinion on so little data. At most, I am able to discern if this is worth pursuing or not to bring more data to the table for proof. Which, consequentially costs money itself.
Thank you, everyone.