It's always possible I don't understand the results, but with others who produce the same results, the onus is on NASA and they aren't ever going to fess up if they're lying.  Now what?  Pretend I didn't see what I've seen? 

The only way what you are seeing can be replicated is basically if the instrument is misused; i.e., it is purposely thrown out of focus or "de-focused". Would you call a family portrait picture that is grossly out of focus so everyone looks like blobs of color a good representation of the subject (or an instrument being used properly)? The fact that I can replicate your results by purposefully "misusing" an instrument actually is a warning that the bloated and boiling star images are NOT accurate representations of their true structure. You're basically just looking at the peculiarities of your own optics.

Does NASA use p900's? They don't play with toys, well... not when they are doing real scientific research.

No offence. I have a Sony WX-220 I think highly of, and it is perhaps more of a "toy" than your p900. My 220 can do things a huge Canon 5D can't. Everything has a purpose, the p900's is not for astronomical research.

My camera was not misused.  I'm not retarded, I do know how to use it.  While taking photos and video you're saying everyone's cameras magically picked up the same things that anyone who isn't NASA got? Sorry, at some point you have to question the narrative and not the whistle blowers.  You'd have to prove we all misused our cameras to come up with such an insupportable conclusion, but that would be remiss because there are dozens and dozens of verifiable proofs that NASA is not just misusing, but actually abusing the ability of their instruments to falsify findings, systematically hiding the truth of God's creation with go-pro trickery, cgi, renderings, fake moon landings and green screens to paint false pictures of our world.  Yes, we can prove it.   

There are several things that this model of flat earth does not address and that anyone that has had the opportunity of living at different latitudes has experienced. One of them is the path the sun follows at sunrise, noon and sunset on a given day. For people who live along the equator (e.g., in Quito) the sun follows a vertical path, up from sunrise to noon and down to sunset, and they always get 12 hrs. of daylight (+/- few minutes) every day of the year regardless of the season. North of the equator, during spring and summer, if you stand outside your house facing exactly to the East, the sun appears to rise from your left side, at noon it will be slightly on your right side and back to your left at sunset (not a vertical but inclined path). The farther north you go, the sun rises more to your left and experience longer daylight time (e.g., Houston vs Anchorage). However, regions north of the Tropic of Cancer never experience the sun at their zenith (vertically on top of your head). In cities north of Anchorage, like Fairbanks, on June 21st the sun follows a path that circles the horizon.
At the Equinoxes, anyone in the world experiences the sun rising exactly at the East and setting at the West, but only cities along the Equator experience the sun at their zenith. Autumm and winter, again, north of the Equator, the sun always rises on your right side if you face exactly to the East. The northern you go, the more to the right side.
If you have never experienced this, it will take some time to digest. This phenomenon can only be explained if the surface of the earth is curved at least from a North-Southwise direction. The sketches I attached can give you a better idea. You can compare observations between cities in the US like Seattle, Chicago or New York vs LA, Houston or Miami if you have family or friends. Very few people in past centuries had the chance to travel as much as we can these days and experience these phenomeonos themselves.

I don’t know if this has been addressed before, but can a FE adherent explain why when you climb a mountain the temperature drops drastically? It would stand to reason that if the Sun is much closer to the Earth in the FE theory as opposed to the GE theory, the temperature would rise as you got closer to the Sun.

Uhm, the same reason the temperature would drop on a globe, the decrease in air pressure, and less sun reflecting off the surface, etc.  What, do you imagine that the FE models holds that the sun is 20,000 feet above the surface?  Relatively small increase in proximity to the sun doesn't suffice to cancel out the cooling due to lower air pressure and other factors.  When the atmosphere is thinner, there's less matter for the sun's raise to excite and therefore convert into heat (heat is caused by vibrating molecules).

See, the Glober attitude is that they've already decided that the earth is a globe/ball and so they just keep slinging enough manure at the wall with the hope that some of it will stick.