Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

btickler - if they were photographs I could see how they might be faked but we are are looking at video footages. How could they be faked when they zoom in and out from the stars etc.? 

google plus one 

I don't know? 

So your premise is that still photos can be faked, but movies/videos, which are a series of still photographs, cannot be.  Interesting.

I would suppose there is no number that actually ends all numbers. 

There is something called photo-shop which doctors photos/pictures. If you want to claim these Nikon P1000 video footages are CGI then I would ask you how they do it. These are just amateur astronomers , they are not Hollywood directors/NASA conceptual artists. 

I'm not claiming they are CGI.  I'm claiming that the standards of rigor you apply to selecting which information you believe or don't believe are slanted towards your preferred outcome.  This is something known as confirmation bias.  Moon landing?  Real.  Stars and photos thereof?  Also real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

I know what you mean. When I first began down this road, some 10 years ago, I certainly had confirmation bias as well as extreme cognitive dissonance. If I hadn't continued to challenge both I would still believe I lived on a spinning ball...Lost in Space as well whatever narratives NASA propagates. 

The first time someone told me NASA never went to the moon or the earth was not a spinning ball I told them where to go... and it wasn't pleasant! What is also not pleasant is challenging ones own worldview/core beliefs. To actually ponder being lied to on such a massive scale is very unnerving/disturbing to say the very least! That is why many avoid doing so like they would the plague! 

And an out of focus point of light looks like a blob. The crappiness of your source's scientific standards is clear - if they had the friggin' sense to use a decent telescope to look at the sky, it would work a lot better.

Then there ought to be 2 separate star systems. I asked which stars/planets adhere to which system?

That would be correct but the Nikon P900/1000 magnification is better than most telescopes out there that the general public use. And they are not cheap!

So how did you disprove the reflectors astronauts left on the moon that can be independently verified and allow for measures of distance?

You certainly cannot use the argument that you cannot independently verify the reflectors, given that you also cannot verify the Nikon photos either due expense/lack of access to equipment.  

btickler - I shot a laser to the moon and found nothing there. How do you know there are reflectors on the moon left by the Apollo crew? Oh yeah, I had this same discussion with Elroch many moons ago. Not sure what you mean by independent sources confirming there are reflectors on the moon but I do know NASA has confirmed it with their powerful laser beams

Elroch - is not the Nikon P900/1000 a telescope/telescopic device with 125x magnification? It is not just a camera. It actually works better than a telescope due to zooming in/out capabilities. 

Optimissed - Well, I think the first time I experienced cognitive dissonance was at the age of about 4 or 5 when someone told me Santa Clause was a myth. It was traumatic. 

When I discovered NASA never went to the moon and the earth was not a ball in space that trauma was augmented 10 fold! 

NASA never went to the moon. All the footage was filmed right here on earth. The evidence is beyond doubt! It is easy to prove they did not go to the moon. It is not easy to accept it! 

Cognitive dissonance typically wins out when it becomes too much to bear. 

This camera and similar ones have great optical zoom. It's mostly good for subjects on the Earth with a tripod. But there is a reason why you never see telescopes (except for the bottom of the market) advertised by their magnification to knowledgeable customers. High magnification is the easy bit achieved by adding a suitable eyepiece - the telescope is doing the more difficult business of gathering a lot of light (big mirror) and focusing it accurately (high precision optics).

So it's light gathering power (basically mirror area) and resolution (only fundamentally limited by mirror diameter) that matters. High magnification costs very little. This article explains what the highest useful magnification is and lists eyepieces providing it (about 300x in this case).

For light gathering and maximum resolution, the big zoom lenses (67 mm) are good for a camera and middling for a telescope. That's why it does best with bright objects like the Moon and the nearer planets. For resolution, I believe it stacks up against cheaper telescopes, but if you spend the same money on a telescope you can get something better for faint objects - a big mirror and accurate tracking to take long exposures.

Here is a photo of Saturn with a $1000 telescope (Celestron 6SE)

For comparison, here is one that is supposed to be good for the Nikon P900:

I think you will agree that the telescope does significantly better (at a slightly higher price).

As I mentioned, the highest magnification eyepieces for telescopes go higher (c. 300x for one example), and the limiting factor is the quality and size of the mirror. The result is that good amateur telescopes are WAY better than the Nikon P900. See above photos.