I find it difficult to address all the points of your message in one response using this platform, so I'm going to do multiple responses on individual segments. Let me know if this is OK or you would prefer single long responses.
---
Regarding Webb, I largely agree with everything you say in this section. There are many issues with justifying hyperinflation and metric expansion, all of them requiring too many "special" conditions, unlikely coincidences, and contradicting measurements and observations. The pro-Big Bang establishment will not likely give up on their convictions in our lifetime, but it is increasingly hard to support.
In a way, the results of the Webb observations may support the Bohr and Heisenberg "participatory universe" theory which is similar to some "simulation" theories. With telescopes prior to Webb, we were limited in the distances that we could observe photons from deep space. But the images that Webb captured have stunned the entire scientific community being more distant and plentiful objects than anyone expected defying what lower resolution images should have at least hinted at.
So is it that we have simply been able to achieve that distance of measure.
So, is it that we have just been able to bring those photons into focus, or that we are able to observe those photons has manifested the form of their source? 🤔 Like how a video card only renders the graphics within view, but only the parameters of the objects not rendered exist off screen.
NOTE: 😆 This is not my belief, but there are quantum mechanical truths to those theories that deserve consideration.
---
Regarding galactic lensing, I agree that being part of the system means we need to consider how we are affected by it.
Additionally, there is an immense amount of matter surrounding galaxies and throughout deep space that we are just now able to observe. Maybe half of the baryonic matter in the universe is not contained in galaxies and, therefore, difficult to observe directly. This realization should significantly revise the mathematics regarding galactic formation and motion estimates that we have been using since the 90's, and eliminates justification for exotic dark matter theories but, again, mainstream scientists are largely stubborn defensive humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm%E2%80%93hot_intergalactic_medium
https://www.britannica.com/science/hydrogen-cloud
In short, there is no such thing as a true vacuum in the universe.
