CathInfo.com

Here is proof that stars are not globes.  I've taken videos like this and shared them, so I know this is exactly what you see when you observe the stars up close with a capable zoom lens. 

Have you done this experiment? You assume stars are millions of miles away because NASA tells you that.  Not only is their massive lie proven wrong by videos like this, many other people have discovered the same thing and shared it everywhere. I've seen many of these by various individuals before they were taken down by Youtube and other gatekeepers. Stars are not worlds, they are lights. And they are not too far away to video. Stars are relatively small lights just above us in the firmament. I've personally taken videos like this with my P900 and posted them.  Ignoring or denying the results of honest experiments to see if NASA is telling the truth and even that prove NASA is lying, isn't going to help anyone. 

Firstly, no scientist I am aware of (modern, NASA, or otherwise) has ever made the claim that they could actually visually "see" the "globe" or "disc" of a star with an optical instrument, even via long-exposure photography. Modern scientists DO think of the sun as a "star" (and since the sun has a globe/disc shape when viewed through a solar telescope, their  thought process is that other "stars" are similarly shaped). Obviously this is open to discussion. 

However, in a good-sized telescope with excellent in-focus optics, the stars don't look anything like the amorphous "boiling" shapes captured in that video via the Nikon camera telephoto lens. In a high-quality telescope, the stars are said to look like clean and tight pinpoints of light, even when you push the magnification to its highest (and this is my personal experience as well). At a certain point, if you push the telescope's magnification beyond it's limit, you start to actually see more of the irregularities of the optics themselves than the actual object you are looking at. This can be proved by looking at the same star at the same time with different telescopes of known and varying optical quality. All practical experience with telescopes (and not just NASA or modern side of things) indicates that the actual surfaces and shapes of the stars cannot be seen by eye, regardless of magnification or the size of telescope. The standard explanation given is extreme distance. This is in contrast to the planets, all of which can be resolved into discs of varying sizes given an appropriate-sized telescope.

The problem is that the camera/telephoto zoom lens is the wrong tool for the job if you want to try and resolve small objects in the night sky.  You don't just need magnification, but much larger aperture (larger diameter of the main lens), which actually is more directly related to resolution potential than magnification. The "boiling" irregular images in that video aren't really the surfaces of the stars at all, but basically de-focused blurs of the light coming from the stars. Those blurs just show how bad the quality of the camera lens is. At 1:15, for example, the triangle shape of Venus (and the other objects) is due to astigmatism somewhere in the optical train, which creates spiky or triangle-shaped images. I've observed Venus many times with a moderate-sized telescope, and it is always a sharp gibbous shape or crescent, never that mushy "boiling" triangle shape. The only way you can arrive at a similar image to the camera one in the video via a telescope, good or bad, is to throw the telescope out of focus. So overall as St. Giles indicated, that video proves nothing. One needs an astronomical telescope to accurately assess these objects, not a telephoto lens, and even then the stars will appear as pinpricks of light.

I did several experiments with a friend who had a powerful highly advanced 10" telescope and I had my P900.  His telescope saw a fraction of what my camera picked up and maybe that was the problem, but the fact that both of us got pictures and video is a testament to the fact the stars are not millions of miles away. Neither instrument can do that. 

If your meaning by the bolded text above is that you saw more detail in the Nikon P900 w/telephoto lens used alone than the 10" telescope used alone, than something is gravely wrong here with the acquisition or the interpretation of the images. The 10" telescope will always give more detail and brightness due to the larger aperture. If the telephoto lens + camera alone seemed to give a bigger image or more detail, what you are seeing in the camera is artificial and caused by the camera itself rather than a feature of the star or other object in question. It is most likely due to an inability of the telephoto lens (which is designed for land objects, not the sky) to focus on the star an resolve its light to a point. Or, poor optical quality of the camera is scattering the light and distorting it. If your friend's 10" telescope produced images exactly like the ones in the youtube video, it is out of focus and/or has some serious optical problems.

Unless you want to call me a liar, the stars look exactly like the "boiling" shapes captured in that video and every star is totally different from every other star.

To be clear I'm not calling you a liar here or in the previous post, but I do think you are unfortunately mis-using your equipment (or using the wrong equipment for the job) and are misinterpreting the results you are getting. De-focused stars will always look like those boiling shapes, and each defocused star may indeed look different from the other. The problem is, de-focused boiling star shapes don't tell you much about the object in question other than the quality of the optics you are using. It would be like defocusing a pair of binoculars looking at a cardinal bird until all you see is a red blob; it doesn't tell you much about the characteristics of the object, other than the fact it is red. Look up "star testing" of telescopes and the "airy disc".

In-focus, when testing the optics, the star should look like a point. as you de-focus on either side, it will expand to a symmetrical disc with rings within it. Asymmetry or irregularity (as in the video) means problems with optical quality, or thermal/atmospheric disturbances 
( https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/how-to-star-test-a-telescope/ )

Until you've done this with a p900 yourself, or realize there are a myriad of videos with similar results, taken by hundreds (or even thousands) of people who don't even know each other, and who are only trying to understand what is going on, you wouldn't be so willing to make this false assumption. 

I've used quite a few digital cameras, binoculars, and telescopes over the years, and could easily replicate the boiling blobs you are seeing. The problem is that once again in order to replicate this, you need to de-focus the image, which defeats the whole purpose of looking at the object in the first place, unless you are testing optical quality.  Take a pair of binoculars, look at a star, focus it to a point, and then de-focus it a little and that will approximate the boiling blobs you are seeing in your camera or in that youtube video. And yes, a lot of folks out there sadly don't know how to use their equipment; they mean well, but are mistaken. There are also a lot of folks who do know how to use their equipment who report the stars as pinpoints. And these aren't NASA "elites", but folks who chat on public forums just like this one.