The original "scientific" article looks like pseudo-science (or worse). The only red around should be caused by the writer's embarressment.
(1) "Turns them red - like sunburn". Completely spurious analogy between a physiological protective reaction in the epidermis of an animal, and a supposed chemical reaction of an unspecified mineral in a vacuum exposed to various radiation and bombardment phenomena.
(2) "used an infrared telescope to study the colour of asteroids in space". No, an infrared telescope filters what you see in a specified range of wavelengths in the infrared. What's that going to tell you about the visible red spectrum, then?
(3) "Dr Chapman, who was not involved in the study, wrote an accompanying article in Nature explaining its significance": and presumably by this caveat hopes thereby to preserve his reputation.
(4) "The earth just shakes it enough that the the rubble flips over - resurfacing it." Gravity is proportional to distance.squared. Any meteorite is at least 6500km from the Earth's centre of attraction. Even for a 1km meteorite (!), the differential gravitational effect from side to side is about 1 part in 50 million. And that is supposed to rattle the stones? Or are those perfect Aristotlian crystal spheres getting worn out?
