that is one object with a suggested redshift of z=8.6. However, we do not know the distance of that object because not only was the image taken in the visible spectra (by Hubble), but the spectroscopic results re: it&#x27;s distance have not been reproducible, and so the distance figure is challenged.<p>Fortunately, we have other galaxies, such as EGSY8p7 (z=8.68) have been imaged in the infrared, and as such, their distance confirmed.<p>However, you&#x27;ve just reiterated what GP has said.  I maintain that nobody is denying that the object that has been observed is more distant than it was 13Gy ago, however, the light that we are <i>currently observing</i> emanated from an object that <i>was</i> only 13Gly away.<p>As I stated in my previous comment, the galaxies that we are presently observing are much different, and much farther away today, it&#x27;s just going to take a lot of time for us to see what they look like today.<p>You&#x27;re seeing a baby and claiming to have seen the senile crank that the baby potentially became over 19Gy. The baby we&#x27;re currently observing may as well be dead.<p>If the article author is stating that 13Gly is the maximum distance anything can be from us, then the author is false. However, that&#x27;s not what the author is saying. The author is saying we cannot see past 13Gly because the light has not arrived, and this is patently TRUE. The author makes NO claim about the current location of the objects.