This sounds like it might come from the "non-cosmological redshift" crowd, which argues that the expansion of the universe may not be happening, and that other mechanisms account for the redshift. I haven't kept up with this debate for a long time, but there was a small, renegade school of astronomers that argued that quasars were not distant objects with high red-shifts, but small, faint objects ejected from the cores of our galaxy at high speeds (which is why they were all traveling away from us). This group was led by a well known and respected astronomer, Dr Halton C Arp, who published one of the classics in the field "The Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies" (1966), a catalogue still in use as a standard reference.

Arp championed the cause of the non-cosmological redshift (i.e., the non-expanding universe) but has become increasingly marginalized in the field because of his opposition to the Big Bang. His evidence includes supposed high differences in redshift in galaxy pairs that are clearly seen to be interacting in photographs. Still, the predominant opinion in the field still is at odds with Dr Arp. Because of his educational and professional accomplishments and known contributions to the field, he really cannot be dismissed as a crank or an anomalist, but he nonetheless cuts a tragic figure and he appears to be increasingly isolated amongst his colleagues, working with a few loyal collaborators on the fringes of the astronomical establishment.