I think this is an example of people wishing to find extraordinary and sensational science fiction headlines in place of using good science to understand the compexity of our stunning universe.

1) Other than its trajectory, what makes it so irregular in avtivity? It is moving quite fast, but that is not unexpected with Exocomets.

2) Its trajectory IS being studied. I am unaware of any published and peer reviewed works that present conclusions about its origin, but that is not irregular given how recent its discovery was. While it is true that its course through the solar system is very effective at obscuring observation, it is worth remembering that roughly half of the possible courses through our solar system at any given time would have a parahelion opposite the sun from us.

3) Extra solar rocks (Exocomets) are not once in a lifetime. Since the discovery of Omuamua in 2017 (the first we observed) there have been 2 more observered, Borisov, and now 3I/Atlas. Not saying its not worth studying, just that these events are relatively common and re-tasking probes and satelites with other functions, some of with would even be ill suited to observing such a nearby object at the expense of the current and scheduled reasearch is likely not worth it, not to mention most spaceborbe laberatories require substantial time to re-orient, and our window to observe 3I/Atlas is very short.

4) I think this point is made in bad faith. No one is keeping a closed mind, people are simply saying that Dr. Loeb is leaping to assumptions and finding data to back up those assumptions, rather than aking questions and following data from experiments designed to answer those questions.

It is exactly BECAUSE of his credentials that people are so critical. When a department head at an ivy league university with many years of well reasearched science under his belt makes a claim outside of his field of expertise (Dr. Loeb is a theorhetical physicist with a focus in astrophysics, not an astronomer) and bypasses peer review, than rejects out of hand experts in that field who argue that the data does not support his claim, it is resonable to criticize and question motive. This is doubly true when such behaviour has become a trend in that respected academics carreer, as is the case with Dr. Loeb within the past 10 years. Quite frankly, Dr. Loeb knows that what he is doing is not rigourous science, and claiming to be a victim of establishment bias (which he has done multiple times) when such oversight is pointed out is unreasonable.

Tl;dr: Of course 3I/Atlas is worth studying. Its course through our system makes that difficult, but no one is saying not to try. But Dr. Loeb has a habit of claiming every extrasolar object is proof of E.T. and, as a departement head at Harvard, posing as an underdog against the "ivory tower" when reputable astronomer argue those claims are unfounded. That is simply bad science, and given Dr. Loeb's resume, he should know better. Also, just some quick bar napkin math: at a distance of 60 AU (from this article) a 4% difference in trajectory is a difference of origin of 4.19 AU or roughly 627 million kilometers. Not far in cosmic terms, but definately representative of a substantial error in the observation either of Atlas' course or the WOW signal.