ford i'm sorry ford explorer not an escort what explore the defense investigators are in a or an explorer sport track which was measured at seventy two inches in when they actually make the trip to the target vehicle appears to be pretty clearly in sight when i look to the video well i and eighty three of the governments of the then them to the governments brief i think she's making two assumptions that just aren't supported by the record when she points out that the car can have been in two places at once the st assumption is that the investigators were going the same s also not enough the officer said they could see mr holly's current college but they never thought it was that said it was that the exact same exact point where the investigators car was parked which was immediately behind the stop sign so the reason i don't reporting recommendation he makes this clear i think and unfortunately i think i use some of the same loose language that he did in saying both of the opposite was absurd but i think he understood he understood the difference i think is very clear from his  this case is really about a credibility finding and of course that's something that this court on appeal reports a great deference to that in the magistrate judge found that both officers testified credibly about what they deserved about what they  that's a good question i think i think technically the standard preview for both is clear error your honor but i do think that this this court opinions have said that have used language like great deference when addressing credibility findings and  well the only evidence in the record to show reasonable suspicion for the stop one of the officers testimony they're the only ones who observed what i least guarded at the stop sign mr already did not testify so they're the only ones that saw what happened in th cases are very clear that that there doesn't have to be more you know up there's testimony about what he deserves observed is it sufficient to support reasonable suspicion i would say here even probable cause for the he saw the car come out into the intersection i don't think that's inconsistent at all it simply were perhaps the fact that as they made the turn off your car writer who was driving was checking that to make sure that the way was clear before he turned right on this well so he was glancing retro the whole time was looking right i think that's that's the explanation for that apparent discrepancy  in the i pad video i think it's just not i don't think it showed with everything that an officer trained officers i could see someone who was familiar with the neighborhood then to show that the district court credibility i mean or in question on that last point what were the training had to do with the ability to see i didn't understand your last point you said you don't think a video can show lying to me i think are for the two defense that the best to get is that your officers saw what they saw and so this is very different from most cases where you have a district court judge saying i just don't believe that witness i don't find them credible they're not being truthful with me i have to balance the other side that was very very different and i think if you look at the object of evidence as opposed to the subjective interpret the optics you will find that the