The Black Stone presents an unusual case, because there are really two questions and only one of them is contested. The stone's identity, that this is the stone venerated in the corner of the Kaaba, in continuous honour since before Islam, is not in dispute at all; that is the sense in which the object is "attested." What has been debated, and only by outside observers, is its physical origin.
Since Paul Partsch proposed in 1857 that the stone was a meteorite, the idea has been widely repeated, appealing to the notion of a stone fallen from heaven. Geologists have pushed back. In 1974 Robert Dietz and John McHone argued, on the basis of reported diffusion banding, that the stone is far more likely an agate; others have suggested a basalt or an impact glass. No conclusion is possible, because the stone's religious status means it cannot be detached, drilled or exported for laboratory analysis, and no controlled sample exists. Descriptions rest on visual inspection from close quarters and on old reports.
The respectful and accurate position is therefore to record the tradition, a venerated stone linked to Abraham and set by the Prophet, as the object's uncontested identity, while noting that its mineral composition is genuinely unresolved and that the "meteorite" label often attached to it in popular writing is unproven. The two matters should not be confused.