I see that we are reaching a common ground..Your original post was concerned mainly about a specific object in the night sky and why it didn't noticeable move as the seasons passed. You spent almost the entirety of your first post talking about it. The first paragraph of that post, which is what you re-wrote just above, is not the full question (or, rather, it's a more general question). This is why so much effort has been spent trying to pin down which object you saw.
Everything about parallax and orbital motions is just general information on why and how things move in the sky, which mostly answers your more general question that was the first paragraph of your first post.
The confusion arose not so much from a lack of clarity of what I was saying from the point of you of language, as from the very premisses of my post, one of which I now believe it was wrong.
1. I could not identify that object.
2. I assumed that I was seeing the same object throughout the night and throughout the seasons, in spite of the orbital motion of the Earth. The reason for this assumption was that this body seemed to hover around in an almost circular motion with a radius contained within the span of only three or four hands, admittedly a very crude measurement, but I couldn't do better.So I though it was the same object. It didn't certainly help that I couldn't be more precise.
While I couldn't do anything to identify that object, I must admit that I may have been plainly wrong in the 2nd premiss.
I think that I was not looking at the same object. Somebody in this Forum gave me compelling reasons for this and I won't argue . You people know more than me about astronomy.
Perhaps the fact that those two bodies,( which I initially mistakenly took for the same body ) cropped up almost in the same location, was a mere coincidence.
I thank you all for your help
PS: Just after posting this , I received a comment from somebody asking me to stop acting like a victim.
I didn't even bother to see who sent this comment. Whoever he is , I believe that what I just said in this post proves this contention wrong.