Your evasion of the question is evidence that your personal experience being close to NASA has made you so biased that you are unwilling to consider evidence against that bias.

If all 3 of them said they saw no stars, then that means they saw no stars (or they lied for some reason).

Understanding this isn't rocket science.

;-)

Your evasion of the question is evidence that your personal experience being close to NASA has made you so biased that you are unwilling to consider evidence against that bias.

If they all 3 said they saw no stars, then that means they saw no stars (or they lied for some reason).

Understanding this isn't rocket science.

;-)

Your evasion of the question is evidence that your personal experience being close to NASA has made you so biased that you are unwilling to consider evidence against that bias.

If all 3 of them said they saw no stars, then that means the saw no stars (or they lied for some reason).

Understanding this isn't rocket science.

;-)

Your evasion of the question is evidence that your personal experience being close to NASA has made you so biased that you are unwilling to consider evidence against that bias.

If they all 3 said they saw no stars, then that means the saw no stars (or they lied for some reason).

Understanding this isn't rocket science.

;-)

Your evasion of the question is evidence that your personal experience being close to NASA has made you so biased that you are unwilling to consider evidence against that bias.

If they all 3 said they saw no stars, then that means the saw no stars (or they lied for some reason).

If you are not capable of understanding that, then please do not ever serve on a jury. You don't have to understand what someone is thinking when they tell you flat out what they are thinking. You only have to figure out if it makes sense and if they might be lying.