For the fifth time: the idea that this effect would magically be applied twice to star constellations is nonsense. It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing - your statement is so incomprehensible that I'm not assigning it a truth value.
Who said anything about twice? The wiki says:
In a long row of lamps, the second, supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series, will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of the observer. This explains how the sun descends into the horizon as it recedes.
If two stars are 10 degrees apart when they are above you, and if perspective is causing them to 'descend into the horizon' as they 'recede' then, just like the lampposts, we would expect that 10 degree separation to change. FET is utterly hopeless on this - the above quote completely ignores the fact the height of the lampposts also appears to reduce, but yet the vertical separation of the stars remains the same, just as it ignores the the issue I've already described regarding the lateral separation. The wiki, and many of the arguments on here, are just a confused mess of arguments about perspective, vanishing points and EA, oblivious to the fact that there is no combination of these things that would retain the size and shape of the constellations as they move around the sky.
So that then raises the question: what is different about the stars?
Nothing. You're the only person who states that something is different, but you're refusing to clarify why you think so, and you demand an explanation for a contrast that isn't there.
I'm not the only person - you yourself have agreed that the stars retain their angular separation but the lampposts don't, and other than vague, non-specific references to the wiki, you haven't actually explained the difference at all. You can criticise my arguments all you like, but anybody reading this thread will see that I've pointed an obvious flaw in the FET argument, and shown with simple diagrams that there is a massive problem. You can assert that this is 'incomprehensible' all you like, but your lack of comprehension is not my problem.