You seem to be confused between who wrote the article and the scientists who wrote the paper. You are blaming the scientists for obvious mistakes made by the journalist who wrote the article.
Nowhere does the paper claim that the hydrogen cloud is 100 to 160 million light years away.
To add to the absurdity, while making claims about the scientists being incorrect, you appear to be just making up your own numbers. You claimed that the Carina-Near-Moving-Group is 8,000 to 10,000 light years away. This is simply not true. The Carina group is 100 light years away, and the Columbia association is 160 light years away.
(from your posting)
“The real fact are that the Carina-Near-Moving-Group of stars is NOT that far away as the bozos writing this article claim, but more like 8,000 to 10,000 light years”
Clearly the author of the article (not the scientists) added in the “million” to the distances that they quoted from the article.
The speed you quotes of 200,000 mph is more than sufficient to cover the distance of 100 light years in 35 million years. It would only have to be travelling at 2000 mph to cover that distance. Also it is worth noting that the 200,000 mph speed was only at perihelion. The speed when entering and leaving the solar system was much slower.
So your argument really falls apart once you realize that you are taking what was written and the mistakes made by the journalist (Harry Pettit) and attributing it to the scientists in order to claim that they can’t do basic math.
Reading and comprehension is important.
I looked it up… now the article citing where the Carina near moving group might be may be wrong, but that was where the citation located them as being. Eta Carinae for which the group is named, and part of the group of 20 stars, is ~7,500 light years distance (2,300 parsecs). That seems to confirm my estimate for the center of the group. The article did indeed cite 100 to 160 MILLION light years distance, in the eleventh and twelfth paragraphs of the article (Emphasis mine):
”According to the research, which used computer models to track the historical orbit of Oumuamua, the object has two possible points of origin.
They're clusters of stars called the Carina Moving Group and the Columbia association, about 100 and 160million light-years away respectively.”
I did indeed actually state in my post that the supposed “molecular clouds” existed between the cited groups of stars and the Solar system, but the very poorly written article, and I criticized roundly The Sun, which I have done before for their “scientific” reporting, for citing a “paper” which is pure speculation based on very little fact, and mostly mere supposition, is really pure hype. Did you miss the part of my criticizing the writing in the entire article? Shall I quote “BOZOS writing this article“ indicating that I was well aware of the difference between the authors of the paper and the writer of the ARTICLE??? Apparently you did not grasp that even though you quoted me in your post!
Reading and comprehension is important.