Steve,
"I am not sure to what paradoxes (and anomalies) you refer." The many I identified and analysed, but 'skimming' a paper doesn't commit them to memory. The apparent SR paradoxes of course, which won't go away until logically dismissed, then a catalogue of over 20 of the well known anomalous astronomical findings, many I've repeated above. And I repeat yet again I both agree and describe a complete mechanism able to derive the Lorentz Factor.
I agree that there have been many 'suggested' resolution to many, but none consistent, though most are quite happy that their favourite one 'solves the issues' John Bell called it 'sleepwalking'. The ignored evidence agrees.
I mentioned the ecliptic plane issue (se my 2012 essay) and apparent superluminal jets (I have a discussion at the linked in APS page at present) but let me pick just one other out for you;
"Kinetic Decoupling" of galaxy haloes; It's quite common, where the halo rotates on a perpendicular axis to the disc. Absolutely NO other credible explanation has been found. Yet there are many sleepwalkers in astronomy too so it's just ignored.
Of course if, as you suggest, all such matters 'don't need fixing' then my full derivation of the dynamic is a waste of time! Most would say exactly the same to you about expansion. It's perfectly explained so why try to fix it. I agree that is an equally stupid comment, but no more so.
I you disagree why don't you give me your solution for orbital decoupling and we'll perhaps compare them with the evidence.
The one thing that I must admit quite astonishes me is your adherence to the old unspoken assumption that "Light (entering and) propagating through a (co-)moving dielectric (medium) does not undergo a (D)doppler shift, (while doing so)" I put it to you that is absolute nonsense. just think about what you're saying. I suspect you're considering it AFTER IT EXITS and reverts to the original background frame, which in NOT the case specified!
It does take careful thought I agree.
Best wishes
Peter