I guess it's still disputed and needs more data for a conclusive verdict.

>>17080792
disputed by whom? also the jwst has 8 months of life left, no much more data will be gathered

>>17080796
>disputed by whom?
I don't know, possibly astronomers and space physicists? But that's a wild guess.
>jwst has 8 months of life left
That's the nominal mission span. They've extended it to 10 years, with enough fuel for 20.

>>17080803
>its disputed
>no i have no idea who is disputing this
>no i have nothing but contempt for their backwards theories
>so yeah maybe check your privilege next time

>>17080878
meds, now

>>17080783
Its more of a slow blurn. It takes time, the galaxy has been known about for a long time. But only recently has it been found to have very little heavy elements.
It's not really the first stars, as redshift 6 is quite late, when the universe was about a billion years old. The very first stars are too early and too faint for telescopes like JWST to find individually. So astronomers instead are looking for galaxies which started forming stars later, these tiny dwarf galaxies. And they can only be detected with the gravitational lensing of a galaxy cluster.

>>17080959
Also this isn't the first claim of pop III. There has been several, even going back decades. This one is the most plausible, but it takes time for things to be tested.

>>17080783
Iirc pop 3 stars are supposed to have gone nova before the universe became transparent enough to actually see them.