I have observed how what is considered orthodox thinking within the scientific community blinds the multitude to possibilities which eventually prove to be true.
It appears this may be another such instance, which, like Global Warming/Climate Change, has grown to the point where actual data may be ignored or even concealed to make conclusions fit within a more orthodox framework; that orthodoxy determined by consensus rather than the evidence.
Following the evidence available indicates 3I Atlas is, at least, composed of elements in unusual ratios, and behaving in a manner not seen before. For whatever reason, in this context, orthodox models only highlight the differences, and since much of science is the study of anomalies, those anomalies should be pointed out, and explanations, no matter how unorthodox, considered.
Refusal to take an evidence-following approach may lead to conclusions that are the equivalent of hammering a square peg into a round hole, and diminish our understanding of our surroundings, rather than enhance that.
