THE DUMBNESS OF THE WHALE: Information drowned in the deep!

TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2015

Part 2—The facts you still haven’t heard:
How vast is the dumbness of the whale?

(Editor’s note: The “whale” to which this post refers is the mammoth, appalling cetacean known as “the national press corps.”)

How vast is the dumbness of the whale? Today, let’s consider the way Melville’s “spouting fish” has buried basic information as it pretends to discuss its current consensus scandal.

For years, we’ve stated a basic point—facts and information play almost no role in our public discourse.

As the whale descends to the deep to compose a standard group tale, it’s narrative all the way down! Inconvenient facts will always be sent to the bottom!

Our current consensus scandal displays this aspect of press culture in an especially straightforward way. Let’s review three sets of facts about the “Deflategate” matter.

These basic facts have been disappeared by the spouting fish of the national press. Almost surely, you’ve heard none of these facts before.

The intercepted football which touched off the conflagration

In Homer’s glorious tale, Paris’ seduction of Helen triggers a vast conflagration. In the press corps’ current tale, D’Qwell Jackson’s interception of a pass by Tom Brady touches off the thrilling Deflategate brouhaha.

Within the first week of this mess, Jackson said that he’d noticed nothing unusual about the football in question. But on the sidelines, officials of the Indianapolis Colts had been scandalized by what they said was the softness of the ball!

In the NFL’s official report, the story proceeds from there. This passage describes the NFL found when its glorious functionaries measured the air pressure of the triggering football:
WELLS REPORT (page 70): The pressure of the Patriots ball that had been intercepted by the Colts was separately tested three times and the measurements—11.45, 11.35 and 11.75 psi, respectively—were written on athletic tape that had been placed on the ball for identification. League personnel retained possession of the intercepted ball and it was not reintroduced to the game after halftime. The football intercepted by Jackson was provided to Paul, Weiss for examination in connection with the investigation.
Good lord! According to NFL regulations, footballs are supposed to be inflated within a range of permitted air pressure—anywhere from 12.5 psi to 13.5 psi. On all three measures, the intercepted football measured below that standard!

On its face, that looks like a problem. But uh-oh! Some 43 pages later, the Wells report gets around to presenting some key information:
WELLS REPORT (page 113): As a result of exposure to the colder temperature on the field during the first half, the air pressure of all of the game balls tested at halftime decreased from the levels measured prior to the game. This result is consistent with basic scientific principles, including the Ideal Gas Law, which predicts the proportional change in pressure that is caused by a change in temperature of the gas inside a pressure vessel of fixed volume (such as a football). According to Exponent, based on the most likely pressure and temperature values for the Patriots game balls on the day of the AFC Championship Game (i.e., a starting pressure of 12.5 psi, a starting temperature of between 67 and 71 degrees and a final temperature of 48 degrees), the Ideal Gas Law predicts that the Patriots balls should have measured between 11.52 and 11.32 psi at the end of the first half, just before they were brought back into the Officials Locker Room.
Oops! According to that passage, the intercepted football—the Helen of this conflagration—seemed to measure exactly where it should have!

According to the Wells report, all the Patriots’ footballs were measured at 12.5 psi before the game began. According to the Ideal Gas Law, weather conditions would have reduced their psi readings to a range of 11.32-11.52 psi by halftime of the game.

On two of the measurements, the intercepted football fell within that range. (The pass was intercepted midway through the second quarter.) On the third measurement, its inflation level was above that predicted range.

Based on those readings, there seems to be little reason to think that air was surreptitiously released from this football after it was approved for use by referee Walt Anderson. Presumably, this explains why Jackson said he found nothing strange about the football he intercepted.

Presumably, NFL games are played with such footballs all the time! Presumably, this happens almost every week as weather conditions lower the air pressure that existed before the game began.

Why then did Colts’ officials say they thought this football was strange? We’ve seen no one in the national press corps attempt to address this obvious question. In fact, the press has disappeared these facts almost completely. They’ve dragged this information into the deep, where it was drowned.

The Patriots’ other footballs

On its face, the intercepted football provides no reason to think that air was surreptitiously released from Patriots’ footballs.

What about the Patriots’ other footballs? As the brutish monsters of the deep thrashed about in a frenzy, the other eleven footballs were measured at halftime. What did those readings suggest?

In typical fashion, the process was clownish and chaotic. Two different air gauges produced systematically different sets of readings.

That said, these are the readings that emerged on the so-called "Logo gauge," the gauge which referee Walt Anderson said he thought he used before the game. We number the footballs as it’s done in the Wells report (page 8, page 68):

1) 11.80 psi
2) 11.20 psi
3) 11.50 psi
4) 11.00 psi
5) 11.45 psi
6) 11.95 psi
7) 12.30 psi
8) 11.55 psi
9) 11.35 psi
10) 10.90 psi
11) 11.35 psi

According to referee Anderson, he measured all these footballs at 12.5 psi before the game, then approved them for use. But how strange!

Three of these footballs measured above the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law. Two were substantially higher (footballs 1 and 7). If we assume that those halftime measurements were accurate (a large assumption), that suggests the possibility that Anderson inflated those footballs to a level above 12.5 psi before the game.

Five of the footballs measured within the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law. Only three of the footballs measured below that predicted range. One of the three (football 2) was just a tick below the predicted range.

On face, those measurements provide little reason to think that air was surreptitiously released from those footballs after they were approved for use by Anderson. Perhaps for that reason, we've seen no one mention these readings as the whale has pretended to discuss its latest consensus scandal.

Two points should be noted:

To keep its waterlogged tale afloat, the NFL has judged that Anderson was probably wrong in one of his contentions. Despite his personal recollection, they have judged that he probably used the other air pressure gauge before the game.

In the Wells report, they “explain” their reasoning in the murkiest English ever formed this side of Queequeg. Before the week is done, we’ll look at that presentation.

Final point—there is absolutely no reason to regard any of those measurements as precise or accurate. As noted above, the NFL measured the intercepted football three times, coming up with three different readings.

Was that 10.90 psi for football 10 a precise and accurate reading? There is no apparent reason to think so. The same is true of all the readings presented by Wells as he married the dumbness of the whale to a type of kangaroo court.

Let the bad information roll

Admit it! You’ve seen no one report or explain the facts about the intercepted football, whose air pressure seems to have been where it should have been.

You’ve seen no one report or explain the air pressure readings which were recorded for the other eleven balls.

Crackers! When the whale concocts a tale, he drowns all facts in the deep!

In their place, he will often start inventing false facts. Or he will accept false facts from the party whose point of view he prefers in the thrilling new scandal about which he is spouting.

In this case, the preferred party was the deeply aggrieved NFL. And so, in line with standard practice, false information quickly appeared in the press, attributed to “NFL sources.”

We discussed that false information in two prior reports. First, click here; after that, click this.

On May 7, the Wells report finally released the air pressure readings for the Patriots’ footballs. When it did, it became clear that false information had quickly appeared in the press, attributed to “NFL sources.”

Admit it! In the twelve days since the Wells report appeared, you’ve seen no one report this awkward fact. You’ve seen no one ask the NFL to explain this awkward fact.

In their widely-derided rebuttal report, the Patriots have also alleged that the NFL wouldn’t show them the actual air pressure readings for the first two months of the consensus scandal. The Patriots also allege that they were only given the accurate data on the condition that they not release it to the press and the public.

Those are astonishing claims. Admit it! You’ve seen no one report those claims. You’ve seen no one ask the NFL if those claims are accurate. And you’ve seen no one mention an additional fact which the Wells report mentions on page 100:

In the first days of the scandal, the NFL sent a letter to the Patriots which falsely stated that the intercepted football measured 10.1 psi. In this way, the Patriots were grievously misinformed about the actual state of the facts.

The Wells report describes this remarkable matter as “an inadvertent error.” Admit it! In the days since the Wells report appeared, you've seen no one mention this awkward, embarrassing, kangaroo court-style fact.

As Melville suggested but never quite said, the dumbness of the whale is matched only by its brutal dishonesty. As we’ve fruitlessly told you for years, disappearance of basic facts is a key part of this pattern.

In this morning’s New York Times, Adam Nossiter offers an appalling report about the horrific sexual conduct of men in Boko Haram.

They’re behaving in the ways their broken social contract permits. So are the many reporters and pundits who toy with your world over here.

The behavior of ESPN’s reporters and pundits has been an embarrassing, rolling disgrace in this ongoing matter. Then again, have you seen anyone report, discuss or attempt to explain the basic facts we've presented above?

This is the way our “press corps” works, even with topics which massively matter, unlike this latest exciting topic.

We’ve been telling you this for years. But the dumbness of the whale is extensive:

It’s quite plain that nobody cares.

Tomorrow: Instantly, with lightning speed, the world’s dumbest talking point


  1. "It’s quite plain that nobody cares."

    1. That's easy for you to admit.

    2. Admit it. We repeat, admit it. If that is too murky for you, fess up, already. You have seen no one. Nobody. Zilch. Nada and Nadie. Haven't seen squat. We have discussed this in two prior comments. Previously. Final point. It's astonishing!

  2. We get it, Bob.

    But we also know the equipment boys ate the strawberries.

    And the Whalers are New England's hockey team, not their football franchise.

    How about something on mid century East Coast Celtic Power Forwards for $500?

  3. Warning to casual readers of this blog: These comments are unmoderated. They are infested by one or more trolls who routinely attack the blog author in a variety of ways, rarely substantive. Such attacks are not an indicator of the level of interest of other readers, the validity of the content posted nor of the esteem in which the blog author is held by others.

    1. Your Team! My team!
      Show Bob Our Esteem!

      G00000000 Howlers!

    2. Bob lies! Bob lies!
      They never lie.
      Bob lies! Bob lies!
      They would never lie.

    3. It depends on who "they" are. Are they the whale, the press, or the NFL?

  4. "As Melville suggested but never quite said, the dumbness of the whale is matched only by its brutal dishonesty."

    No, Bob. Melville never even suggested any such thing about the whale's "brutal dishonesty." In fact, his characters said exactly the opposite.

    Was it really that easy to get a degree from Harvard back in the '60s?

    1. Pretending to dissect an overworked metaphor is not the same as discussing a substantive topic. Do you have anything to say besides a personal attack on Somerby?

    2. Would a personal attack on pseudo-intellectual dumbasses like yourself who lap up what Somerby regurgitates here daily and think it's a steak dinner be OK?

      Just askin'.

    3. @ 10:40 your comment is not substantive. Admit it! You've written no comment that wasn't a response attacking other people's original expressions of their views. Do you have anything to say that is not performance as a parrot in the cage of some blogger from Baltimore?

    4. Not so. I write substantive comments almost every day. They are generally ignored, unless mm or CMike or deadrat is around. It gets discouraging trying to engage in conversation and get feedback on ideas in a group that seems to want to do nothing but mock Somerby and make stupid plays on words (probably KZ over and over). It isn't clever to concoct word salad out of Somerby's previous phrases without ever expressing anything meaningful except "Somerby is a poo-poo head". I have visited other blogs and the comments in most of them are no better than here, except where there is moderation. People over at Atrios, for example, seem obsessed with telling each other about the weather where they live. Just as much a waste of time but less hostile than here.

      I don't always agree with Somerby. Sometimes I strongly disagree and say so. I do object to the distortions of his obvious intentions by conservative trolls and people who seem to hate him without ever stating why. That silliness yesterday about the Melville quote is an example. Who really thought Melville referred to a dumb whale instead of a white whale? You don't have to have been to Harvard to understand his allusion. Just high school.

    5. How do we know you are not KZ?

    6. Was that your comment below at 11:54?

    7. 11:49, with all due respect, Bob has been playing this "the messenger is the message" game as he launches into personal attacks against people he judges to not toe his line.

      And you just can't understand it when people hold Somerby to the same standards he demands of others.

      You might call it "silliness." I might say that Bob was caught deliberately altering a passage from a major literary work to fit the story he wanted to tell, then hoping his readership would take him at his word, not remember not only that passage, but the entire chapter correctly, then double-checking it.

      No, you don't need an Ivy League degree to catch Bob's allusion. But you also need only a high school education to understand it is a pretty lazy, sloppy one, typical of his work these days, and presented with blatant dishonesty as if mere laziness and sloppiness weren't enough.

      Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was once a Bob Somerby who took the effort to look up the "footnotes" (actually endnotes) in an Ann Coulter screed as she was being widely praised for her extensive research, only to discovered that those cited sources actually said the opposite of what Coulter claimed.

      There was also a Bob Somerby who ripped Maureen Dowd for pointless, pseudo-intellectual literary references designed only to show off how smart she was.

      What we have left is a Bob Somerby who will go on all week writing the same thing five times about Moby Dick and Deflategate and call it a series, as his blog continues to sink deeper and deeper into irrelevance.

      Meanwhile, we have Republican candidates with their new "talking point" about the War in Iraq. "No, I wouldn't invade now, knowing what we know. But don't blame the Bush Administration. Blame the intelligence community."

      Know why Bob won't touch that? Because it's the same defense he used for Susan Rice's blunder.

    8. If you deliberately treat a literary device as a factual change and misinformation, you are being intellectually dishonest in order criticize Somerby. You also confuse legitimate criticism of people's work product with "personal attack." Somerby generally says people are probably good people (with some notable exceptions when the malfeasance seems purposeful and unethical or dishonest). His criticisms are about what they have said or written, not who they are as people. I said there are some exceptions. You seem to conflate the two approaches.

      You also seem to expect Somerby to show a consistency that just doesn't exist in the world and that is probably inappropriate because context (circumstances) dictate different standards and behavior in different situations. You don't have the flexibility to appreciate why his criticism of Dowd's behavior is different than what you accuse him of with that Melville quote.

      That is a dead give away that you are KZ or someone with similar brain injury or mental illness, or a person motivated to demand a use of language that is found nowhere in human communication.

    9. Re 12:31 - You seem to only appreciate Bob when he skewers people you don't like. I have read TDH for many years and his message has always been consistent, that the media should report the news completely and accurately. It is not Bob's job to look up footnotes from Ann Coulter's book, but someone in the media should (shouldn't they?). You imagine that Bob is defending what Susan Rice said, but what he did was complain about what the press said about the incident. You completely misunderstand what the issue here is. This is not about Bob. It is about what the media did with the issue. Speak to that.

    10. I keep forgetting that Somerby is above criticism. What you poor fans don't quite understand is that a whole heck of a lot of people caught onto Somerby's game as he has slowly morphed into that which he allegedly crusades against.

      Or perhaps you have another explanation why his readership has plummeted so low it barely has a pulse. (You can go look it up yourself if you have Alexa.)

      By the way, I didn't accuse Bob of being inconsistent. I accused him of being lazy, unoriginal, boring, and a terrible writer who will pick at specks in the eyes of others while ignoring the beam in his own.

      And I do admit. He's been pretty damned consistent in all of that.

    11. 1:35 is a Rachel Maddow White Knight who doesn't like what Bob is up to here at his blog. 1:35 would like to advance the "progressive" agenda and the careers of certain individuals who promote it, without critique. The pain of the painful truth is the root of 1:35's contempt.

    12. "I accused him of being lazy, unoriginal, boring, and a terrible writer who will pick at specks in the eyes of others while ignoring the beam in his own."

      In psychology, this is called "Fundamental Attribution Error" and it is part of human nature. Everyone does it, including you too.

      If you find this blog boring, unoriginal, poorly written, feel free to go away. There is no reason for you to stay here and interfere with the interests and enjoyment of others. In fact, it is a pretty anti-social thing to do day-in and day-out, as you do. It takes so much energy to do what you do here that saying Bob's poor writing drove you to it is insufficient motive to explain why you expend the energy. There must be more behind your constant criticism than Somerby's errors. I would suggest you see a shrink about it, but I suspect you already have one. Maybe you need to fire your shrink and get someone who can help you figure out why you are really here. HINT: It isn't because Somerby is a bad writer.

    13. anon 12:31, you are just dense. On top of that, if there is a sane reason why you to keep reading a blog that you can't stand (and apparently can't understand) year after year, you haven't been able to come up with it, which leads me to conclude that there isn't one.

    14. "If you find this blog boring, unoriginal, poorly written, feel free to go away."

      Be careful what you wish for. Lots of people have already done so, and if another 5 take up your offer, it would cut Bob's Web traffic in half.

  5. Do you understand that today's post is not about football -- it is about how the media concocts narratives then manipulates facts to serve those story lines? It doesn't matter whether the story is about an NFL investigation or about Clinton or about the Iraq War. The process is the same. You should care about it because it affects the functioning of our democracy.

    1. You are correct. Bob never writes about what he writes about. It's always about something else.

    2. Do you understand that Bob concocts his own narratives then manipulates facts to serve his story lines?

    3. You both should know neither of your comments provide insight into the burning question of whether the "deflator" was performing unclean penetration of the pigskin in the men's room or merely bleeding his lizard while worrying about weight loss.

      Admit it! And we don't care if you claim you've done a Nexis search either.

  6. I admit it! I've seen no true report about the PSI of D'Qwell's pick.

    But uh-oh. Gack. Alas. Keep your creepy cracker own views of Queequeg's English to your own fruitless telling self.

    Murky my ass.

    1. Queequeg's English gap was caused by his Daddy not marrying his Baby Mama. Admit it pseudo-libs!

    2. What kind of you people name their sons D'qwell and Queequeg, anyway?

    3. What kind of you people name their sons D'qwell and Queequeg, anyway?

  7. So where are we today?

    Yesterday, Bob deliberately altered a passage from Melville to fit his narrative, and when caught, he said it was just a little joke.

    Today he says the only whale he refers to is not Melville's, but the press corps. Then he throws out yet another false allusion to Melville that surprise! fits his script.

    Keep digging, Bob. You'll get to China soon.

    1. You stupid troll.

      Bob is sailing to China.

    2. You out-dumb the whale. Why are you reading a blog that requires the understanding of words?


    We are the conflagration
    Of the World.

  9. No matter what else happened it's all Brady's fault. He never should have thrown that pick. He should have thrown the ball out of bounds or taken the sack.

    It all goes to show that on any given Sunday even a handsome, experienced all-pro with more rings than you need to hold a circus
    can make a mistake that costs his team.

  10. TDH has laid out the facts of Deflategate pretty well and pointed out how most media presentations follow the NFL's point of view. And I agree completely with TDH that media reports have failed to examine the data published in the Wells report. One simple explanation is that the media coverage is performed by people who are no more competent in chemistry, physics and statistics than NFL executives.

    But I think the situation is worse than that. There are very few people who have enough grasp of science and measurement to understand why the Wells report effectively exonerates the Patriots.

    As a guess, I would estimate that perhaps 2% of the US population would weigh ball measurement data as being as important as the text messages that reference "new kicks and cash." And, sadly, the same approach will be taken on many issues--like evaluating Presidential candidates.

    1. How many different people had their hands on Football 10?

      Have we clearly established chains move with change of possession?

      And would your guess estimate that more would answer don't know/don't give a rodent's patoot than the 2% with the intelligence and courage to stand up for accurate PSI readings?

    2. I think the 2% is an underestimate. I think the increasing number of people abandoning religion are a symptom of the increased understanding of science and the physical world. Since that number is now 20% (according to Pew), perhaps that many would also follow a science-based argument (assuming they care at all about football).

    3. 12:20,

      I can't follow what you're saying. Does it matter that Tom Brady has to spend a few Sundays knocking around his mansion instead of playing football? No.
      Does it matter that lightweights like Mike Lupica drift from writing empty-headed drivel about sports to writing the same way about politics? Yes. He gets published in a major NY newspaper with a big online presence and is accepted a something of a moral authority on both sports and politics. This is not good for civilization.

    4. Trollmes, thanks for an intelligent post, which has become so rare here

  11. OK, the narrative today seems to be that if Jeb Bush has to answer for all of his brothers actions and policies, then Hillary has to answer for all of Bill Clinton's. Is this a false equivalency or should people who were not in office but closely related to someone in office be held responsible for someone else's work?

    The media isn't going to talk about this. It is just going to keep covering these attacks on Jeb and the attacks on Hillary as if they were real issues.

    1. We did not get Jeb in a two-fer deal offered by W.

      When we got Bubba he threw Hil in with the deal.

      Gore too, but nobody cared. They knew when Bill said "Two for One" the grad school dropout tobacco farmer wasn't part of the bargain.

    2. So you are saying that Hillary must answer for Bill's policies but Jeb doesn't have to account for GW's? Is Hillary also accountable for Obama's policies while she was Sec of State (just as Gore would be held accountable for Clinton's despite having little input into them)?

      I think Hillary is capable of defending her husband's record and already she is explain how times have changed and her policies have changed with them. However, I do think the conservatives are trying to run against Bill. Whether that is feasible and even a good idea is another matter. He is arguably more popular than Hillary, so that may be a mistake.

  12. I may be late getting in on this, but ...

    If the National Press Corps is a great leviathan -- then who is Ahab?

    1. You mean the obsessively insane guy chasing the great leviathan for years as he seeks revenge against a dumb animal?

      Good question.

    2. Seems to me the whale is the one holding a grudge and Hillary is the target of their animus aided by the right. So I'd say they were Ahab. Somerby is Greenpeace.

    3. "The obsessively insane guy chasing the great leviathan?" It's KZ, obviously.

  13. When our media "drown information in the deep" instead of reporting it, how are readers supposed to know what isn't being said? What is the check that balances the media's selective editing or deliberate suppression of information?

    1. This blog, among few others.

    2. This blog ain't "the check" on the media. But it is one. And an often valuable one. The problem of the media is a real one certainly.

      New, "social" media forms appear to some (fools) as a significant change, such that critiquing "old media" is therefore pointless. Spend any time with such media as a source for information about the political world, however, and you realize immediately that you are dealing with the recirculation and amplification of ideas from "old media."

    3. It's true, there is nothing new under the sun. The promise of new media is that old media will be rendered irrelevant and cease to be regarded a reliable and authoritative source, unless it has distinguished itself. That doesn't mean new media is any more reliable or authoritative. The change is that there is more independent information available, like this blog, that enables an individual to more thoroughly scrutinize all forms.

  14. "In this morning’s New York Times, Adam Nossiter offers an appalling report about the horrific sexual conduct of men in Boko Haram.

    They’re behaving in the ways their broken social contract permits. So are the many reporters and pundits who toy with your world over here."

    Now Bob's just being a dick.

    1. On what warped planet does pointing out those facts constitute "being a dick"?

      No one mistook the comment to mean reporters and pundits were committing rape. Only that they are permitted to behave in heinous ways in violation of their social contract Sometimes with equally severe consequence.

  15. "I am so happy to share this wonderful testimony about Dr Brave, my name is Mellisa Jefferson I am 34 years old, I live in Florida united states, I am happily married to Sowers Jefferson with three kids we got married in 2006 I am a banker but due to some certain family conditions I had to quit my job so I could have time for my family my husband works in a construction company not long ago around may 2015 my husband started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was very Confused by the way he treat me and the Kids. Later that month he did not come home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked him what have i Done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying is that he want a divorce That he hate me and do not want to see Me again in his life, i was mad and also Frustrated do not know what to do,i was Sick for more than 4 weeks because of the divorce. i love him so much he was everything to me without him my life is Incomplete. i told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster, i never believed in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something will come out of it. i contacted Dr Brave for the return of my husband to me, he told me that my husband have Been taken by another woman, that she cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and also want us to divorce. then he told me that he have to cast a spell on him that will make him return to Me and the kids, he casted the spell and After 27hours my husband called me and He told me that i should forgive him, he Started to apologize on phone and said That he still loves me that he did not know what happen to him that he left me. it was the spell that Dr Brave on him that brought him back to me today, i and my family Are now happy again today. thank you Dr Brave for what you have done for me i would have been nothing Today if not for your great spell. i want You my friends who are passing through All this kind of love problem of getting Back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact him on this email: , web site: . and you will see that your problem will be solved Without any delay or effect cell number +2348072370762 Thanks for reading. ."

  16. I promise to share this testimony all over the world once my boyfriend returns back to me, and today with all due respect I want to thank DR.ONIHA for bringing joy and happiness to my relationship and my family. I want to inform you all that there is a spell caster that is real and genuine. I never believed in any of these things until I lost my boyfriend, I required help until I found a great spell caster, And he cast a love spell for me, and he assured me that I will get my boyfriend back in two days after the spell has been cast. Three days later, my phone rang, and so shockingly, it was my boyfriend who has not called me for the past 6 years now, and made an apology for the heart break, and told me that he is ready to be my backbone till the rest of his life with me. DR.ONIHA released him to know how much I loved and wanted him. And opened his eyes to picture how much we have shared together. As I`m writing this testimony right now I`m the happiest girl on earth and me and my boyfriend are living a happy life and our love is now stronger than how it was even before our break up. So that`s why I promised to share my testimony all over the universe. All thanks goes to DR.ONIHA for the excessive work that he has done for me. Below is the email address in any situation you are undergoing, it may be a heart break, and I assure you that as he has done mine for me, he will definitely help you too.
    CALL/WHATSAPP : +16692213962.