g the appellate panel within the administrative agency thought your fellow wedding was lying i read the record i have no idea why i can think of reasons why one's lying while the other lying i don't have any trouble seeing why a person working for the government might be lying i once had a case where an air traffic controller actually swore piece out of the tape so that we wouldn't find out what he said to a pilot and people can have a lot of job interests in pretending they did their job right when they didn't i don't now my inclination is to trust the person who had them testify in front of them which is  he saw them both but i can't as far as i can tell i have to defer to the n t s b and if i have to defer to the n t s b i don't see how i can say that there was not a substantial basis in the record as a whole for their conclusion what else  proof but you've got also pay attention to the standard of review in terms of the standard of review the n t s b has to come up with something substantial in order to throw out  and he that of course did happen there the line that said inspector and dave had been omitted now two points on that why would anybody who is going to alter documents do something as obvious as change the second over the appropriate block number three and spilled into the lower category he said i want one of the goods that is the rationale for why it was the long did it in the obvious to everybody now my my point on burden of proof is that you can't under the law say i think you did it therefore you're guilty and i invite you to disprove it that's what happened in this case mr wiley went to such lengths as to submit to a voluntary polygraph you know the results of that you know that the ministry was judged declined to accept it and my changed his story after deposition to change the story and the icing on the cake was that within two weeks of the theory i was given to for the first time his home number that evening but i do not recall the subject of our conversation it is possible that i didn't conduct a field approval for very working on two nine zero zero but i do not recall this that host visited his testimony i mean his recollection as reported in three depositions and now says hey i mean a green there well you're showing me is there substantial basis in the record to show that much was lying he said he didn't fax in the phone records show he did he changed the story repeatedly and the changes kept getting closer and closer to where wedding story at can you show at and the expert says the way the letters get squeezed together like that is by being altered when it comes when you cut and paste them on a computer and it's pretty obvious it's cut and paste and that's seems to be the core of what the f a a uses for the n t s b uses to say that the a l j just missed the boat on this or what the answer to that now making sure i understand what if you know the us national transportation safety board struck my original reef for the reason that a container tiriel that i described as argument in the case of my illustration and also material that was in the form of deposition testimony i'm not going to argue this point to the court except to say that the record is defined if under the appropriate rule is the transcript of testimony and testimony and exhibits which i'm going to call evidence together with all other papers requestion rulings now other papers supply depositions but at the hearing i put the depositions  and be recorded as part of the record rather than go through the whole business asking the same questions over and over again i did in two years you're wrong because their conclusion was only the evidence constitutes the record yet paragraph eight twenty one point four says the records are the transcript of testimony and exhibits to gether with all papers filed there is how would the letters have gotten squeezed together where i'm looking at the v a administrators the boards opinion where they say that although respondent admits cutting and pasting the part of the document as well as the back of it cool matter with today's technology is that these forms are put on a computer and they are still there they are sent back and forth they are transmitted by reprinted this so he must be guilty of the other thank you thank you co i were just in a position where i had a better hundred dollars on who's telling the truth i'd put my money on wedding because they are j saw and heard both of these people and that that was his judgment and you can explain both ways these details about the documents so i guess we're just it's creator prevail it really has to be this whether there's substantial that why shouldn't we believe what in story that lots is responsible for walk three and if somebody made a filing error or searching temper at the end of the two week mr sheppard called him it wasn't ready and then he was repeatedly calling him throughout the month of january and being told well it's not ready and finally in february the beginning of february he a motive and that is to get the plane back to the owner with the paperwork before he actually has the paperwork since he's already been kind of slow on the repair and lets you say well he has no motive and it seems obvious to me he does if his boss keeps telling them what's what you're supposed to do when issue one of these certificates as you put it in the database and lets us off i keep forgetting busses quick forget it don't forget again and lots issues the certificate need doesn't put it in a database two things you can do one is if his boss finds out he can say i messed up and the other is to say i didn't  saying is we don't have to believe lots we don't have to make this determination on what's his credibility the scientific evidence shows that weighting faked the document yes why don't you move to that and and it's not the excerpts right at my fax when i started on find resolution does not have visible step and so i should say the same facts that was used here yes you know i can't look at that we don't have the whole record i guess well look at the record if we what sure does look like it was at the form of the signature block were a rubber stamp signature block was scanned in separate light and that then there was a cut and paste operation with photoshop or some similar program three thirty seven had been altered or it could have been lifted digitized and put on in other version number two the fact that documents not in the oklahoma city file  is explained by the procedure in effect explained in the record after the three thirty seven has filled out the mechanics copy with what it did the owner of the airplane keeps a copy which was found in the airplane and the completed copy is that back to the scottsdale or the federal aviation district office for putting in their going peter and then sending to oklahoma city last but not least the comments about what council just told you that the n t s b board found that the basically said that anybody with a copy machine know you can make a bigger or smaller etc but the expert never never and you won't find in the record anything that mr willing forged the signature falsified document he said in my opinion it could not have been faxed we have records despite what mr lutz told us first of all that faxes did go back and forth the day before and the date and that is also in the