Ugh!!! How do we know meteorites come from Mars?!?!?

This article clearly states rock "blasted" from the Martian surface by impact. How the HELL do we know that? Why can't it be rock "blasted" from the asteroid belt or Venus or one of jupiter's moons or some other celestial body? This is crap!!!!! I think this may be a way to direct our attention to the Martian surface and its environment and perhaps disclosure at some point (yeah right) Seems to me the only accurate way to determine the validity of this claim would be to have geological boots on the ground, A PERSON, conducting scientific survey and comparison; much in the way our geologist match igneous rock, et al. across continents. Our rovers and satellites couldn't possibly be conveying the data to confirm this claim as "scientific" claims of this nature have been coming our way long before we ever sent hardware to the red planet. Enlighten me, please!

www.foxnews.com...

Only if they are marked "made on Mars" or "product of Mars."

Meteorite speed + distance travelled = answer to it's trajectory.

a reply to: bkfd54

We've known the basic composition of Mars for a while now, since we have rovers there and what not.

Which means we can compare that to what we find here on earth and compare.

And also, what Charlie said.

~Tenth

When we heat meteors in a vacuum they emit gasses. These gasses have a 'signature' of compounds. The sniffer on some Martian probe or other in the past ( i forget its name) returned analysis results of Martian atmosphere that matched the meteorite in question.

(so they say).

a reply to: bkfd54
Here is the answer that NASA gives:

Meteorite ALH84001 is a softball-sized igneous rock weighing 1.9 kilograms (4.2 pounds). It is one of twelve meteorites discovered on Earth which are thought to be from Mars. Most meteorites formed early in the history of the solar system, some 4.6 billion years ago. Eleven of the twelve martian meteorites have ages less than 1.3 billion years, ALH84001 at 4.5 billion years old being the only exception. All twelve are igneous rocks crystallized from molten magma in a way which suggests they formed in a planetary-sized body, not an asteroid. They have similar oxygen isotope characteristics to each other and higher concentrations of ferric iron, water, and other volatiles than other meteorites. All twelve also show evidence of shock heating, presumably as a result of the impact which ejected them into space. Gas bubbles trapped in one meteorite, EETA79001, have a composition which matches the current martian atmosphere as measured by the Viking Landers, compelling evidence that this meteorite and by association the others, including ALH84001, came from Mars

Source: skeptics.com

a reply to: bkfd54

Because science b****!.
Also the answers before.

It's called grasping at straws. They can't find much with actual probes sampling actual real Mars rocks so they look elsewhere.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I forget you were born in 1756 and are a luddite.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


Strange equation.

Example:

Speed = 5
Distance = 20
25 = Mars ?

You need direction in your equation, two coördinates at least.

Noted all. However, we have been saying all of these meteorites have been from Mars since before the hardware was place on the planet and sent to the atmosphere. There is no way you can mathematically calculate a meteorite impact on earth as coming from Mars...too many variables effecting all the points to calculations listed above. One would have to watch (or ride depending on preference) a blasted rock right from the surface of Mars to touch down here. I'm raising the BS flag.

I often question these things as well. Like how do they know it doesn't have the same composition as another planet or it didn't come from another galaxy without having those samples to compare. But they use words such as thought or suggest to not make their statements proven as fact, so I take it as such.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
It's called grasping at straws. They can't find much with actual probes sampling actual real Mars rocks so they look elsewhere.

I'm not sure that's exactly true. The Viking landers in 1976 did give them a lot of information about Mars, some of it is still being scrutinized, (if that's the right term) and maybe being looked at again in the light of other and new 'informations' cleaned from meteorites, now Curiosity and the other rovers and where there was negative consensus about life on Mars for instance back then, could become a positive consensus. They still debate over the Allan Hills meteorite for instance.
Take this line here,

" Micropaleontologist Schopf, who described several important terrestrial bacterial assemblages, examined ALH 84001 and opined that the structures are too small to be Earthly bacteria and don't look especially like lifeforms to him. The size of the objects is consistent with Earthly "nanobacteria", but the existence of nanobacteria itself is controversial.

Schopf says they are too small to be Earthly bacteria, then says they don't look particularly like life forms. I presume he went home then.
Then the second comment, the object is consistent with Earthly nanobacteria, which we're not sure exists??

That's a great fecking help innit? It's like pulling beezers out of a hat.

originally posted by: EartOccupant
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


Strange equation.

Example:

Speed = 5
Distance = 20
25 = Mars ?

You need direction in your equation, two coördinates at least.

Basically the distance travelled and the speed at which it travels can decipher which direction it came from and whether Mars was aligned with the trajectory.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So who's to say it didn't come from phobos for Deimos or who's to say it didn't get blasted off the planet get affected by its gravitational pull and get shot someplace else look at the number of astroids we have passing near Earth orbit I just don't buy it sorry.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Meteorite speed + distance travelled = answer to it's trajectory.

The trouble with that is you don't know how far it came, or how fast. It would not indicate the trajectory anyway. Fail.