COMPLEXITY COULD BE RESOLVED BY AUTHENTICITY – QUOTE BY AJAY MISHRA DATED DECEMBER 1, 2017 – THE SOLUTION TO ALL THIS .. THIS BEING WHATEVER IS BEING DONE, THOUGHT ANALYZED

KATRINA -> IN MOVIE WHEN ZAREEN KHAN – ANOTHER LOOK ALIKE – WAS THERE – U DID – WHCIH ONE – WHERE SALMAN KHAN -> SAID -> AMUL -> KHAO-KHAO -> MOTEE-> HO JAAOO

FORM-FIT-FUNCTION

is this lucy pinder yes or no btw how less do u peoples know anyway 1 is she from london like katrina 2 is her middle name katherine 3 why her video for tits has libya in it

olga shulman katrina kaif agneepath i changed bollywood so thats my name helo katrina how is salaam is ranir still with u hello hillayr ji because of u see what i lerant

From: Streak <notifications>
Date: Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 1:18 AM
Subject: Someone just viewed: Re: Someone just viewed: Re: Someone just viewed: Wandering Jew Plant (Tradescantia pallid)
To: ajayinsead03

Someone just viewed your email with the subject: Re: Someone just viewed: Re: Someone just viewed: Wandering Jew Plant (Tradescantia pallid) Details
People on thread: OLGA SHULMAN LEDNICHENKO BLOG POST BY EMAIL
Device: Mac
Location: sutton coldfield, eng

AFTER THIS – IF I GET PISSED – BUBBA – AND PLEASE TELL THE TWO O’S THAT THERE IS RUMORSE THAT THERE EQUALS TO EXIST – A POWER IN JEW WORLD – THE ONES WHO CONTROL THE WORLD – HIGHER THAN EVEN – ANY PM OF ISRAEL LET ALONE NETANYAHU BENJAMIN

I MEAN WHAT I SAY BUBBA – AND I SAY WHAT I MEAN -> PLEASE -> TELL THIS TO THE TWO OS – OLGA AND OBAMA.. OBAMA SPECIALLY BECAUSE U MAY NOT KNOW LET ALONE FIND WHERE IS THE OTHER O

ONCE AGAIN

643361467 SPECIAL ITEM AJAY MISHRA BILL CLINTON JANUARY 20 1997

Yonatan “Yoni” Netanyahu was an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officer who commanded the … Shortly after their wedding, they flew to the U.S., where Yoni enrolled at … During the same war, he also rescued Lieutenant Colonel Yossi Ben Hanan … during the war, with a disproportionate number of these in the officer ranks.Missing: hello â€643361467 â€da â€vinci â€code

(Excerpted from the â€œAfterwordâ€ of The Letters of Jonathan Netanyahu by … from Muki [an officer of the Unit who was to be Yoni’sÂ number-two man in the raid]. … to return to Israel, because he was repeatedly asked: ‘When can Yoni get here?Missing: hello â€yossi â€cohen â€643361467 â€da â€vinci â€code

Yonatan “Yoni” Netanyahu was a commander of the elite Israeli army … family resettled in Elkins Park, a suburb of Philadelphia, where Benzion Netanyahu taught at … During the war he also rescued Lieutenant Colonel Yossi Ben Hanan from Tel … during the war, with a disproportionate number of these in the officer ranks.Missing: hello â€cohen â€643361467 â€da â€vinci â€code

Jul 4, 2016 – Friedman met Yoni Netanyahu in January 1963 when they were in high … But the organizers of the event said no one decided to boycott the event honoring Yoni Netanyahu … â€œIt’s unfortunate considering the dynamic of the community here. …. Jewish Broadcasting Service Â· Coupon code and Promo code.Missing: hello â€yossi â€cohen â€643361467 â€da â€vinci

THE PRIME NUMBER MACHINE. … CLICK HERE TO SEE MY VINCI … DA VINCI CODE … IT EQUAL TO â€“ ALSO â€“ MEANS â€“ THAT ME IS EQAUL TO HAS DA VINCI … THANKS TO BIBI NETANYAHU AS HOTMAN’S PRIMARY ADVRSARY …. FROM 324368521 TO YOSSI COHEN, HILLARY CLINTON JI AND BARACK …

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Ajay Mishra <ajayinsead03> wrote:

TRUE

BUT

[A] THIS TIME – THE CREDIT GOES TO THE ONE WHO [1] DID IT – AND [2] WHO TELLS THEM – WHAT HAPPENED IN THEIR NEIGHBORS – NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND..

[B] WE CAN TEACH MOOSAD – A WAY – A PATH – A HOW TO

U KNOW – THE OTHER WAY TO PASS AND GET AND FETCH AND DIMMESINATE INFORMATION

ISNT MOSSAD FIRST AND FORMOST AN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY?

THAY ARE AN AGENCY – TOO đŸ™‚

YEAH WE LIKE AGENCIES –

AND U KNOW – AND SO U KNOW – THE HINDU TELLS THE JEWS – WHERE IS ISRAEL – AND – KABUL –

NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND ..

U KNOW

NOW THE ELECTIONS ARE EQAUL TO OVER – AND SINCE MY CHOICE – DIDNT GET IN WITH THE U HAUL IN THAT BUILDING WHICH IS NOW HAS AN AC PROBLEM – THANKS TO BARACK –

OK LET ME KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT

OK?

OK THAN

THANKS FOR YOUR COMPREHENSION AND FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING

THIS – IS MEANS IS – DID ME SAY – YONI CATEGORY -DOESNT COME BELOW – PM OF ISRAEL – DO U BELIEVE OR NOT?

OK THAN MOSSAD REPORTS TO PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL – IS A SHORT ANSWER

NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND – IS -SOMETHING U MAY WANNA KNOW – JUST IN CASE – U KNOW ISRAEL LESS THAN THE HINDU

đŸ™‚

á§

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Streak <notifications> wrote:

Someone just viewed your email with the subject: Netanyahu names Yossi Cohen as next Mossad chief http://dlvr.it/CxjN1Z Details
People on thread: OLGA SHULMAN LEDNICHENKO BLOG POST BY EMAIL
Device: Unknown Device
Location: unknown

Zoo welcomes baby giraffeWJXT Jacksonville
Luna went into labor while she was on exhibit and zoo guests were able to see the early stages of the birth. Zookeepers then called Luna over to the …

Beardsley Zoo opens Penguin PlazaCT Post
Zookeepers Lindsay Carubia, left, and Jamie Cantoni with one of the four visiting African penguins on exhibit at the Beardsley Zoo in Bridgeport.

image280 – 324368521 -ZERO-LIGHT-INFINITY-OLGA-FARZANA-MASSOUD- AHMAD SHAH – AJAY MISHRA VERSUS BOLLYWOOD AND DAWOOD IBRAHIM
324368521 + —–1467 + ZERO-LIGHT-INFINITY-LIGHTS-NUMER-6-OLGA-SHULMAN-LEDNICHENKO-PRODUCTIONS- REAL LIFE REAL SPICE [AJAY MISHRA VERSUS BOLLYWOOD AND DAWOOD IBRAHIM

image280 – 324368521 -ZERO-LIGHT-INFINITY-OLGA-FARZANA-MASSOUD- AHMAD SHAH – AJAY MISHRA VERSUS BOLLYWOOD AND DAWOOD IBRAHIM
324368521 + —–1467 + ZERO-LIGHT-INFINITY-LIGHTS-NUMER-6-OLGA-SHULMAN-LEDNICHENKO-PRODUCTIONS- REAL LIFE REAL SPICE [AJAY MISHRA VERSUS BOLLYWOOD AND DAWOOD IBRAHIM

324368521 + —–1467 + ZERO-LIGHT-INFINITY-LIGHTS-NUMER-6-OLGA-SHULMAN-LEDNICHENKO-PRODUCTIONS- REAL LIFE REAL SPICE [AJAY MISHRA VERSUS BOLLYWOOD AND DAWOOD IBRAHIM

324368521 + —–1467 + ZERO-LIGHT-INFINITY-LIGHTS-NUMER-6-OLGA-SHULMAN-LEDNICHENKO-PRODUCTIONS- REAL LIFE REAL Â SPICE [AJAY MISHRA VERSUS BOLLYWOOD AND DAWOOD IBRAHIM

image280 – 324368521 -ZERO-LIGHT-INFINITY-OLGA-FARZANA-MASSOUD- AHMAD SHAH – AJAY MISHRA VERSUS BOLLYWOOD AND DAWOOD IBRAHIM

324368521 + —–1467 + ZERO-LIGHT-INFINITY-LIGHTS-NUMER-6-OLGA-SHULMAN-LEDNICHENKO-PRODUCTIONS- REAL LIFE REAL SPICE [AJAY MISHRA VERSUS BOLLYWOOD AND DAWOOD IBRAHIM

SALMAN KHAN LOOK ALIKE CREATOR MOTHERFICKING BOLLYWOOD SHIT – WITH DAWOOD IBRAHIM’S BROTHER

SALMAN KHAN LOOK ALIKE CREATOR MOTHERFUCKING BOLLYWOOD SHIT – WITH DAWOOD IBRAHIM’S BROTHER

SLMAN MADARCHOD KHAN BOLLYWOOD LOOK ALIKE CREATOR – MOTHERFUCKER SHIT

ME+324368521

/

\

EQUAL TO

/

\

=

ZERO-

/

\

LIGHT

/

\

INFINITY-

/

\

AN-

/

\

OLGA-

/

\

SHULMAN

/

\

-LEDNICHENKO-

/

\

PRODUCTION

324368521 +AJAY-MISHRA-YONI-NETANYAHU-EQUAL TO ? ZERO-LIGHT-INFINITY – CASABLANCA – AJAY MISHRA VERSUS DAWOOD IBRAHIM PLUS BOLLYYWOOD

Keywords: Geometry; Algebra; Numerical Uncertainty; Fine Structure Constant and Physical Uncertainty

1. Introduction

In this article, we study the implications of numerical uncertainty for the measurement of various physical magnitudes, such as the fine-structure constant and the speed, mass and charge of an electron. Numerical uncertainty occurs due to the need to engage in processes of algebraic approximation, and has profound implications for the measurement of physical magnitudes, which have been relatively neglected in the study of the relationship between mathematics and sciences such as physics.

The use of mathematics in science became so widespread that it is now difficult to imagine the formulation of scientific theories in many areas, such as physics, without the use of mathematics. Mathematics brought precision to the formulation of many theories within astronomy, and within the natural sciences, especially when there is the possibility of insulating causal mechanisms within an experimental context.

Given the widespread success of the use of mathematics as an instrument for formulating scientific theories, there has not been much scrutiny of the nature of the instrument which contributed so much to this success. Mathematics is taken to be a standard of precision, and an instrument which brings precision to the formulation of scientific theories.

However, a scrutiny of the contributions of key mathematicians and scientists shows that there has been much controversy throughout the development of mathematics and science, concerning the use of mathematics, and the nature of mathematics too. And a careful investigation of those controversies has important implications for the interpretation of scientific theories. For it shows that the instrument which is taken to be a standard of precision, namely, mathematics, has not always been used with full precision, a fact which introduces much uncertainty in the numerical estimations made within scientific measurement, and in the very formulation of scientific theories.

We start the article with a brief discussion of the use of geometrical and algebraic methods within mathematics, and afterwards address the implications of the use of those methods within scientific studies. We then show the implications of the use of algebraic or numerical approximations, and their path-dependent nature. Those implications are then scrutinized in more detail in the case of physics, more specifically when measuring the fine-structure constant and the relationship between the mass, speed and charge of an electron.

2. Geometry and Algebra

The mathematician Michael Atiyah [1] notes that behind the controversy between Newton and Leibniz over differential calculus, there were two mathematical traditions, one grounded on geometry, which Newton followed, and another one dealing with algebra, which Leibniz followed.

Newton believed that continuity was an essential property of Nature. But for Newton, only geometry can provide certain knowledge of a continuous reality. Algebra and arithmetic, when attempting to describe a continuous reality, can designate exactly the rational numbers, but provide only processes of approximation when attempting to describe real numbers such as the square root of a given prime number. However, Newton believed that processes of approximation cannot provide the certainty required by science. Thus, he thought that geometry was the more appropriate tool for describing Nature – see Guicciardini [2] for a discussion – and Newton tried to separate geometry from arithmetic, as the ancient Greek mathematicians also did, without mixing geometry and arithmetic, as the Cartesian approach does through the use of numbered coordinated axes within geometry.

Atiyah [1] argues that Descartesâ€™ use of coordinated axes was an â€œattackâ€ made by the algebraic tradition of mathematics against the geometrical tradition of mathematics, making geometry conform to algebraic coordinates. Whatever is the assessment we make of the introduction of Cartesian axes into mathematics, we can certainly agree that it introduced important mathematical problems, which were perceived early on by Newton.

The Cartesian axes presuppose the idea of a continuous geometrical line, where a real number corresponds to each of the infinite points of the continuous line. The geometrical idea of a real line presupposes a continuum of points, but algebraic and arithmetical operations can only provide an approximation (as close as we like) to some of those points. While an exact formulation of rational numbers can be easily obtained, we cannot reach the real numbers that are presupposed by the Cartesian axes (such as the square root of a given prime number) in any other way, other than through a process of arithmetical approximation. Thus, Newton thought that geometry must be studied without Cartesian axes, which introduce numerical discontinuities, and thus uncertainty, into science, and science ought to reach certain knowledge.

However, the development of mathematics followed the Cartesian perspective, rather than Newtonâ€™s perspective. Until the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Cartesian method was dominant in the European continent (where Leibnizâ€™s notation was adopted) while Newtonâ€™s geometrical approach was dominant in Cambridge and England. And throughout the nineteenth century, the Cartesian approach became dominant even in Cambridge and in England.

The discontinuities in the real line were addressed afterwards through the contributions of Dedekind, Cantor and Zermelo, which led to the completion of the algebraic project started with Descartes, and the numbering of the real line that was implicit in the Cartesian axes. This perspective, often termed as mathematical â€œPlatonismâ€, assumes that numbers are existing entities.

Criticisms of this perspective continued, not least through mathematicians like Kronecker, for whom only the natural numbers were exact, and real numbers were constructed through arithmetical operations, rather than â€œPlatonicâ€ entities that already exist. But criticisms such as Kroneckerâ€™s were marginalized, and the â€œPlatonicâ€ approach of Cantor and Zermelo, developed by Hilbert too, became the standard approach within mathematics. The Cartesian project led thus to the perspective which is now dominant within mathematics.

3. Mathematics and Science

Scientists have often used Cartesian mathematics when formulating their results, without further discussion of the problems of the use of Cartesian axes within geometry that were perceived early on by Newton. For example, Einstein writes, in his book The meaning of Relativity:

â€œI shall not go into detail concerning those properties of the space of reference which lead to our conceiving points as elements of space, and space as a continuum. Nor shall I attempt to analyse further the properties of space which justify the conception of continuous series of points, or lines. If these concepts are assumed, together with their relation to the solid bodies of experience, then it is easy to say what we mean by the three dimensionality of space; to each point, three numbers, x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3} (co-ordinates), may be associated, in such a way that this association is uniquely reciprocal, and that x_{1}, x_{2} and x_{3} vary continuously when the point describes a continuous series of points (a line)â€ [3].

Einstein is clearly aware that further discussion of the assumption of a continuity of points of the Cartesian axes is necessary. But he does not go into detail on this issue, and simply uses the Cartesian coordinates, unlike Newton, who felt the need to abandon the Cartesian perspective, and ground his approach within pure geometry.

However, if we scrutinize the implications of Newtonâ€™s perspective on mathematics for Einsteinâ€™s theory, we reach interesting conclusions, which are connected to the idea of uncertainty, which was advanced by Heisenberg quickly after Einstein made the remark above. Newtonâ€™s point was that arithmetical and algebraic operations provide only approximations to real numbers. Indeed, if we want to compute a square root of a non-squared number, we can reach a degree of approximation as close as we want. But since we can only make a finite number of operations, there will be a given degree of uncertainty concerning the final result, which depends on how far we decided to go in our process of approximation. And this uncertainty has important implications for Einsteinâ€™s relativity theory too, as we shall see.

4. Numerical Approximation and Path Dependence

Arithmetical operations of approximations lead to the existence of numerical uncertainty, which depends upon the operations made, and the number system used. The uncertainty of the outcome is closely linked to the numeric base used in operations. The fraction 1/10, for example, can be represented in the decimal number system as 0.1, but in binary format becomes the regular binary decimal 0.000110011001100110011 … which is not exact. What happens is that 0.1, despite being accurate in the decimal system, ceases to be accurate on the binary base and cannot be represented in a finite way. Thus, we can only reach approximations to this quantity in a binary based calculation system.

Therefore, a calculation that leads us to the real number 1 does not correspond necessarily to the natural number 1. That depends on the set of rules used throughout successive approximations. In other words, we could get the number 1 in various ways. The number 1 can be obtained as the product of n times, or n^{2} times, or n^{3} times

and so forth, but such a result is nothing more than an approximation. There is no uncertainty in the value of nwhich are just natural numbers, but there is uncertainty in the calculation of.

Each of those operations, whose exact outcome would be the natural unit, causes errors, that is, numerical uncertainty, when we generate this number. Both the addition and subtraction and the product are defined in N, while Q, the set of rational numbers, is generated only by the introduction of the operation of the division of natural numbers. In this context, any rational number q can be algebraically generated by an infinite set of data from an operation, whose statistical distribution has uncertainty k, and where q is the mean value of the range

. If we calculate the real number as with, the number 1 would be an infinite set of identical elements.

This also means that in any calculation process in R there remains numerical uncertainty when determining the value of a natural number, which depends on the sequence of operations through which we proceed. The question that follows concerns how to measure this numerical uncertainty. We use here, as an estimate of the numerical uncertainty in the generation of a real number, the standard deviation of the statistical distribution of all products of natural numbers by their inverse, which lead to the number we wish to calculate.

In this work, we represent numerical uncertainty by, where k depends directly on the standard deviation of the several elements used to calculate 1 when n assumes different natural values. We can use the same method to calculate the numerical uncertainty of the real number 2, by calculating the standard deviation of all results of the form, , which is, obtained experimentally, , with mean 2. Contrarily to what was expected, when using the same operations to generate experimentally the statistical distribution for the real number 3, we find that numerical uncertainty Despite the calculation rules and approximations made being the same in the generation of a number n, uncertainties are equal to nk only in some cases. It turns out, in a general way, for the decimal system, that:, with a being a natural number. This rule implies that as we operate with large integers, the uncertainty of numbers that result from these operations will increase dramatically. However, the numbers that are not powers of 2 do not present a very clear rule.

In the calculation of a real number by the aforementioned operations, the resulting error, evaluated through the standard deviation, is associated with the approximation produced in the operations involved. Regardless of the type of approximation performed or numeric base used, any number on which we operate always has a finite number of digits, given our finite ability for computing numbers. This error is not, in most cases, equivalent to the calculated error by the theory of errors where.

The numerical uncertainty given by is a specific case of the numerical uncertainty given by with, where with and the finite. This result means that there are â€œquantum leapsâ€ with dimension 2^{a}k between groups of numerical uncertainty. It should be noted that these uncertainties are associated with the concrete realization of operations (division and product) of numbers that generate the unit and as such, are not effectively the natural unit, but an approximation to the unity in real numbers. In order to visualize the behavior to which we are referring, in the following graph (Figure 1), we present the distribution of standard deviations of the first 1060 numbers generated by operations, with b being a natural number, i ranging from 1 to 1000, and j ranging from 1 to 1060:

As we can see in figure 1, numerical uncertainty, with, generates p single sets of uncertainty with 2^{p} points, with.

Potentiation introduces certain rules for small natural numbers, since until n = 100 we have that

.

If n is a natural number and k the finite uncertainty of a real n generated by algebraic operations, we can find that or which means that the uncertainty produced by the same algebraic operations that

Figure 1. Relation between the standard deviation of the set of numbers that generate real numbers from 1 to 1060, using natural numbers from 1 to 1000.

acts on the uncertainty of the previous number n is the same or vanishes, that is:

or

Obviously radicals can also produce numerical uncertainty, which means that can be zerothat is, , or a multiple of k, or the result of a specific natural number multiplied by k. We have that

, but on the contrary, we also have that:.

In general, and, with a being a natural number.

If we focus on the expression, and consider that is not zero, we also find uncertainties for the real number one different from zero.

5. Numerical Uncertainty and Physics

The fine-structure constant Î± is a physical constant which characterizes the magnitude of electromagnetic force and was defined by the first time by Arnold Sommerfeld [4] as, where e is the electronâ€™s charge, Îµ_{0}

the vacuum permittivity, h the Planckâ€™s constant and c the speed of light in vacuum.

For some time now, physicists of the international scientific community have questioned themselves whether the so-called universal constants are actually â€œuniversal variantsâ€, that is, capable of assuming new values as time goes by. If the fine-structure constant, even being an empirical constant, had a lower value, the density of atomic matter in the Universe would also be lower, with weaker connections under lower temperatures. If, on the contrary, the fine-structure constant were larger, the smaller atomic nuclei would not exist due to electric repulsion between protons. This interpretation of alpha can predict a physical outcome; even we do not assign it a real physical meaning. Others interpretations where proposed: Î± is the ratio of two energies or the ratio of the velocity of the electron in the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom to the speed of light, among others.

Richard Feynman, referred to the fine-structure constant in these terms:

â€œThere is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, Î± – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends wonâ€™t recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: a

bout 137.03597 with

about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place.

It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to Ï€ or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. Itâ€™s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the â€œhand of Godâ€ wrote that number, and â€œwe don’t know how He pushed his pencil.â€

We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we donâ€™t know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!â€ [5].

In fact, the numerical uncertainty Î”(0.08542455) is much lower than the numerical uncertainty of Î”(137.03597).The numerical error of 0.08542455 measured as the standard deviation of 1000 calculations of the type has a value of 7.08393E^{âˆ’16} and the standard deviation associated to a thousand calculations of has a value of 2.50239E^{âˆ’12}. Let us assume then that 137.03597 is the average of the numbers generated in the previous operation and that if we take into account numerical uncertainty it will lead to an interval from137.03597 âˆ’ 2.50239E^{âˆ’12} to 137.03597 + 2.50239E^{âˆ’12}. In order to calculate the value of Î± mentioned by Feynman, for the number 137.03597 we have then two possibilities:

and which would generate the numbers 0.0854245499999992 and 0.0854245500000008 with standard deviations of 1.66398E^{âˆ’16}and 1.40267E^{âˆ’15}, respectively.

If the difference of 2 in the last decimal case related to the calculation of Î±, is connected to the calculation path, then it is possible that the two values are coincident with the numerical intervals obtained through their numerical uncertainty. In fact: (0.08542455 âˆ’ 7.08393E^{âˆ’16}) âˆ’ (0.0854245500000008 âˆ’ 1.40267E^{âˆ’15}) = 0, which explains that the difference between the two values of the fine structure constant pointed out by Feynman may be due to the numerical uncertainty generated by the operations.

The fine-structure constant can also be calculated as [6]. We can equate both expressions for the determination of the fine-structure constant [5] and [6], and we reach:from where we obtain:

(1)

Since is the product of physical and mathematical constants, it must be constant, and so must be constant too, which means that there is an inverse relation between the electrical charge of the electron and their mass, except if the electron charge and the electron mass are not in rest, or the electron mass and charge are unchangeable at the atomic level, at least for low energy levels. For low energy levels the electron in the first Bohr orbit moves nears 1/137 of the speed of light.

OLGA SHULMAN LENDICHENKO 324368521 SANJAY DUTT MOVIE REGARDS, AJAY MISHRA – – THIS IS ANALYTICAL PAHELI MEANS – QUIZ – IN URDU AND HINDU AND HEBREW, ITS CALELD – HOLLYWOOD STYLE MOVIE – THRILLER MOVIE HEARD WORD -ROMANTIC THRILLER

whats the url image fname anything u ever vee Ever Ever read and waThC anything?

FROM AJAY MISHRA CHALLENGE TO ALL – MEANS ALL – SHOW ME – ONE SLOT AND ACT MORE MILTI PRONGED THAN THIS – PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU AND PRESIDENT OBAMA AND PRESDIENT CLINTON – AND OLGA MEEMSAA AND SANJAY DUTT – SANJAY -MAFIA PLUS IIT MEANS