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.
Shall I quote the very first line of your post?
“These ‘scientists’ claim this object is approximately ‘35,000,000 years old; but then later try to tell us it originated from a hydrogen cloud 100 to 160 million light years away???!!!!”
You later refer to the person writing the article - but not in your opening line. You clearly refer to the scientists in it. It is the second word in your post.
Hence why you appear confused.