He makes a pretty convincing case that there are several highly unusual properties of Oumaumau that makes it reasonable to hypothesize that it is of unnatural origin. Whether or not you're convinced, you'll at least come away much better informed about his arguments that from the soundbite back-and-forth that passes for debate in articles like the BI one.
He makes excellent points that given historical data, a mm thin solar sail really shouldn't be our first conclusion instead of a collection of rocks that broke apart and refused back together (think of a combination of Shoemaker-Levy and Ultima Thule).
And given the short length of time we've been observing space, chances of one of the first things we see enter our solar system be a tumbling, solar sail would mean that interstellar space is chock full of wildly tumbling solar sails! We need to take base rates for probability into account and realize that since most of the stuff we've seen in space is just rocks and most of our models predict just rocks in interstellar space, the probability of it being anything other than just a rock is very low.
This whole media obsession with Avi Loeb definitely feels like an example of news organization paying too much attention to the institution an academic works at and not how the rest of their field thinks about their ideas.
If he wants to make any progress understanding Oumuamua, he will need to talk to a plasma physicist. Then he will need to stop talking about it, because there is no more reliable way to get ostracized in astronomy than to start talking about that.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/nailing-down-the-nat...
He makes a pretty convincing case that there are several highly unusual properties of Oumaumau that makes it reasonable to hypothesize that it is of unnatural origin. Whether or not you're convinced, you'll at least come away much better informed about his arguments that from the soundbite back-and-forth that passes for debate in articles like the BI one.