I suggest you read the paper. It's packed with subjective language (Row one of table one, the incoming trajectory is said to be "virtually" in the ecliptic plane), and has so many unstated assumptions behind their so-called significance of the trajectory it's not valid.

And the stated 5 degree angle disagrees with published observations.

And the estimate of the size is over double the confirmed observations of size.

While "Not aligning with scientific consensus doesn't make your suggestions worthless" is true, ignoring published results does.

Being an attention whore does it