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. 

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). 

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. 

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.

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. 

If you went through the math and considered variables such as the size of stars, their claimed distance, atmospheric distortion, and the tolerances of telescopes and cameras, you will find both the explanation to what you see, and you will realise how extremely difficult it would be to get a clear image of a star from earth's surface.

That camera and telescope are like little toys compared to what's needed. There's even problems with getting precise focus as changes in temperature change the size of the parts. Just try to look at a distant hill with a telescope, and you will see much distortion through all that air. Actually, poor quality images are often seen in daytime p900 videos at max zoom. Depending on how good your eyes are you can learn to pick up on small details until you clearly see how cameras like the p900 are far inferior in image quality compared to a pro grade camera. I used to think highly of a little camera of mine of the same quality as the p900, but without the high zoom, until I started using a Canon 6D.

The main problem with image quality comes from pixel size on the sensor, and ISO sensitivity. What was the ISO number when you take videos  like that? If it says ISO AUTO you need to at least try to find what aperture number and shutter speed number were used, then manually set the ISO until the video looks the same. Then, tell me the ISO number. If it is any higher than 400 on that camera, the quality will be bad, and even 400 looks bad in general. 100 looks good, but is still a several times worse clarity than a Canon 6D at 100.


Who are you to say what the limit is for how far light can travel? No offence, but you're almost acting like an atheist as in, the facts, math, and experiments exist to give you plenty of reason to believe stars are extremely far away and practically impossible to visually resolve from earth, but you don't want to believe like so many flat earthers. Like the Catholic faith has plenty going for it to be believed, but so many choose not to. I find it best to walk away and mull over things for a week as I can stubbornly be so attached to my reasoning that I can't see my error.

I do understand some of you're concern, because I sometimes see a star that flashes different colors and hadn't found any good explanation at the time. I haven't looked into it since, but why that star? I could come up with some hypotheses.

  I would have taking this as an honest question ... until your last sentence.  This is really one of the simplest things to address.  Whether you're on a globe or on a flat circle, in both cases you're simply going in a circle when you go around the earth.  Do you imagine the FE model is the Mercator Projection where it just suddenly stops on either side.  Perhaps if you'd educate yourself a bit first you'd be in more of a position to summarily reject "this FE stuff".

An interesting tangent: the size of lenses required to have the same zoom capability as the p900, but on large sensor cameras like the 6D https://pixelpluck.com/battle-of-biggest-zoom-lenses-ever/


I'm not saying that NASA is right, but there is too much evidence in favor of the possibility that NASA is right, not their artistically enhanced images, but real observations that is easily backed by math that at least shows what they say is possible, if not certainly true.

How small is light? If even 1 photon makes it to your camera all night long, that photon had to come from somewhere. How do you rule out it didn't come from a star (assuming we are trying to image stars at night)? Consider how big NASA says the sun is. If stars are that big, and considering how small photons are and how bright the sun is, that is an enormous number of photons released per millisecond of which we only need a grain of sand worth to see. it is very easy for those few rare photons that just happened to be aimed right at earth to reach us in enough quantity to see. It is also not hard to understand how very distant galaxies can be visible when a camera is left to collect light from them over several days at high sensitivity. with a billion stars the size of the sun or larger in one galaxy, as big and spread out as NASA says galaxies are, surely enough photons perfectly aimed at earth will accuмulate over several days to make the image of a faint little galaxy.

Just don't rule it out. You don't have to trust NASA, but I don't see enough evidence to rule it out. If you poke a stick into water, it looks bent, so it is bent right? Wrong.

We can disagree about the use of equipment, but the fact that the stars are provably not as described by NASA, there is a lot more work to do to get to the bottom of what is going on above us.  I don't agree that the star should look like a point, unless I'm going by information provided by people I don't trust and ignoring what I found. 

The fact that you can replicate the stars as I've seen is maybe a sign you should ditch the preconceived ideas and look at your results independently. 

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.