Sorry but you are wrong. Camera fixed on a tripod with long exposure rotating with the earth one gets star trails. Put the camera on a mount that rotates fixing on a point in the sky and the result is an animation that shows the earth rotating. I’m not sure what more proof you would require?
No, like so often, you are wrong, as clearly explained already.
All that shows is that there is relative motion between Earth and the stars.
It doesn't show that it is Earth that is rotating.
That was already clearly addressed.
So why ignore it?
The proof that is required is proof that it is EARTH that is rotating, not the sky, or not just the sky.
If you need a simple example to help you understand, consider a Ferris wheel.
Place a camera along the axis of the Ferris wheel some significant distance from it, looking directly at the centre.
Now you can have the camera fixed to Earth and have the footage show the Ferris wheel turning.
Alternatively, you can have the camera rotate at the same rate as the Ferris wheel. This now shows the Ferris wheel stationary while the entire Earth moves around it.
And for completeness sake, have the camera rotate at some rate which is different from the Ferris wheel. Now both Earth and the Ferris wheel appear to move.
So what is actually happening? Is the Ferris wheel turning with Earth stationary? Is Earth turning with the Ferris wheel stationary? Or are both turning?
That is what your simple visual evidence cannot distinguish between.
According to those who claim Earth is stationary, the footage is equivalent to option 2.
They would say you are turning the camera at the same rate as the sky/Ferris wheel is rotating.
This produces the visual appearance of Earth rotating with the sky/Ferris wheel stationary.
Now do you understand?
Or do you think that Ferris wheels remain stationary while all of Earth (in fact the entire universe) rotates around it just because you can set up a camera to show that?