Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Is Paranormal Investigation Truly Scientific?


Korbus

Recommended Posts

Well it makes me think of that youtube vid where the green mist appeared at the gas tanks.. assumed it was "ghosts," but I still think it was fumes mixing with other chemicals or something going on to that effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Radian

    7

  • Korbus

    7

  • NoahJaymes

    6

  • Pluto-x

    6

Majority of the things we catch in the paranormal field as evidence could very well have a 99% chance at being something natural that scientists have not discovered yet? I'm not saying the things that already have an explanation for, but for all we know the things we catch such as apparitions, EVP, anything unexplained could very well just be something natural. But I think its cool that as investigators we can capture cool things that make you scratch your head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why scratch your head at a fumes of gas, or noises from a train 10 miles away..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too many investigators fall into the 'I want to go get some EVP's and have a thrill' category.

100% agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Majority of the things we catch in the paranormal field as evidence could very well have a 99% chance at being something natural that scientists have not discovered yet?

I agree.

When that happens it's going to be interesting to see how the spiritual end of the field reacts to a purely science-based explanation. :unsure2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always keep in mind that amature scientists have often made remarkable discoveries that traditional sciences didn't or overlooked.

Even now people are experimenting with devices and theories in their basements and garages that may yield incredible possibilities. Do a Google and then YouTube search on "Ion Wind" for example. Other than maybe top secret government stuff I'm unaware of any formal scientific program studyign this for practical applications. Maybe it has none but I'd place my bet on hundred or even thousands of amature science buffs experimenting with this rather than a group of stuff PhD science guys.

PS- I chose Ion Wind as an example on purpose. I think the mechanics may explain some events experienced in the paranormal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS- I chose Ion Wind as an example on purpose. I think the mechanics may explain some events experienced in the paranormal!

Curious, but what exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious, but what exactly?

People in alledgedly haunted or active locations (especially indoors) have reported unexplained puffs of wind, breezes, and other air movements where there is no obvious cause like a vent or fan or window.

If entities are based at least in part on electricity (which I think is very likely) than Ion Wind caused by the entity manifesting may be the explanation for these unexplained air movements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see. I've never paid much attention to the gust of wind complaints here too much, but I got back home Wed night and was lying in my bed everything was quiet and calm, when this gust of warm air hit my face from no where. It wasn't cold, but very warm. There was no explanation for that wind. None at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is for my group in that we follow scientific methodology. Our website has the scientific method on the main page to explain how we go about investigations. Scientific can have a lot of different meanings, but at the very least any respectable paranormal team follows this methodology in my opinion. You definition of scientific may differ from others.

Introduction to the Scientific Method I. The scientific method has four steps

II. Testing hypotheses

III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?

VI. Conclusion

VII. References

Introduction to the Scientific Method

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

II. Testing hypotheses

As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c << 1). Since this is the domain of a large portion of human experience, the laws of classical mechanics are widely, usefully and correctly applied in a large range of technological and scientific problems. Yet in nature we observe a domain in which v/c is not small. The motions of objects in this domain, as well as motion in the "classical" domain, are accurately described through the equations of Einstein's theory of relativity. We believe, due to experimental tests, that relativistic theory provides a more general, and therefore more accurate, description of the principles governing our universe, than the earlier "classical" theory. Further, we find that the relativistic equations reduce to the classical equations in the limit v/c << 1. Similarly, classical physics is valid only at distances much larger than atomic scales (x >> 10-8 m). A description which is valid at all length scales is given by the equations of quantum mechanics.

We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws.

Error in experiments have several sources. First, there is error intrinsic to instruments of measurement. Because this type of error has equal probability of producing a measurement higher or lower numerically than the "true" value, it is called random error. Second, there is non-random or systematic error, due to factors which bias the result in one direction. No measurement, and therefore no experiment, can be perfectly precise. At the same time, in science we have standard ways of estimating and in some cases reducing errors. Thus it is important to determine the accuracy of a particular measurement and, when stating quantitative results, to quote the measurement error. A measurement without a quoted error is meaningless. The comparison between experiment and theory is made within the context of experimental errors. Scientists ask, how many standard deviations are the results from the theoretical prediction? Have all sources of systematic and random errors been properly estimated? This is discussed in more detail in the appendix on Error Analysis and in Statistics Lab 1.

III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."

In a field where there is active experimentation and open communication among members of the scientific community, the biases of individuals or groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated by different scientists who may have different biases. In addition, different types of experimental setups have different sources of systematic errors. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests (usually at least several years), a consensus develops in the community as to which experimental results have stood the test of time.

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?

While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving. What do you do when your telephone doesn't work? Is the problem in the hand set, the cabling inside your house, the hookup outside, or in the workings of the phone company? The process you might go through to solve this problem could involve scientific thinking, and the results might contradict your initial expectations.

Like any good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it.

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

VI. Conclusion

The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things. In this introduction, we have emphasized that the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation. We have also tried to point out some of the criteria and practices developed by scientists to reduce the influence of individual or social bias on scientific findings. Further investigations of the scientific method and other aspects of scientific practice may be found in the references listed below.

VII. References

1. Wilson, E. Bright. An Introduction to Scientific Research (McGraw-Hill, 1952).

2. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962).

3. Barrow, John. Theories of Everything (Oxford Univ. Press, 1991).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lot of truth in what you are all saying. It's true, paranormal investigation isn't true science. For one thing, we don't go into an alleged haunted location blind. I mean, we are contacted by a client who says they have activity, so we go in thinking it could be haunted already. Even if we are going in skeptical, we are still only there because the person thinks they have a haunting. We are then given a tour of the location's hotspots...again, this isn't exactly a blind study.

Absolutely correct. "Blind" protocols are a hallmark of scientific research wherever bias of any kind can creep in, and most paranormal investigation teams go in hopelessly front-loaded with info.

But investigation of the paranormal can and does proceed according to scientific methods, sometimes even under laboratory conditions.

You just have to know how to design the study.

Still, I wonder...even armed with video footage, audio of EVPs, EMF and Temp readings, etc etc....would that ever PROVE an area is haunted? We can show a place to be historically haunted, for instance....if 2 or more tenants of the same location at different periods who don't know each other all report the same activity, for instance.

But will all the video and audio in the world ever give the paranormal acceptance in the scientific community? I really don't know if it will happen.

You'd have to operationally define "haunted."

And keep in mind that proof positive does not really exist in science.

Edited by Hamlyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paranormal investigation really isn't scientific, because in order for it to be so, someone would have to conduct an experiment with repeatable results under controlled conditions, which no one has done yet.

Not true. Science studies many phenomena that can't be reproduced under controlled conditions. And many paranormal studies can be and have been conducted under controlled conditions.

It's more along the lines of a crime scene investigation, where the attempt is made to dispell reasonable doubt.

True, the ghost-hunter kind of teams operate exactly that way.

However, since we know so very little about any of this, one could argue that all we're really doing is observing, which is the first requisite of science. Perhaps in time we'll have enough information to form falsifiable hypotheses and design experiments to test them.

Already been going on for decades. But yes, you have exactly the right idea.

BTW: There is a serious problem with the "evidence" gathered in the kind of quasi-"crime scene investigation" that the ghost hunters do, and that can be summed up as "chain of custody." We have a very hard time telling who touched what evidence and when, which naturally leads to accusations of outright fakery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely correct. "Blind" protocols are a hallmark of scientific research wherever bias of any kind can creep in, and most paranormal investigation teams go in hopelessly front-loaded with info.

But investigation of the paranormal can and does proceed according to scientific methods, sometimes even under laboratory conditions.

You just have to know how to design the study.

You'd have to operationally define "haunted."

And keep in mind that proof positive does not really exist in science.

Yes, and I would like to add, ideally, investigators would go in to see what is there, not to find ghosts (which is essentially what you said) . This is where, if possible, I like to bring in a reputable psychic, with no knowledge of the venue. Rarely has it happened that we were given something by the psychic that we could look up and verify later. This did happen with my sister group in Ontario. Really fascinating case where the psychic drew a picture of a dancing lady and they tied it in perfectly with the history of the place upon subsequent research. (that's all the details I can remember without looking it up).

Yes, I know that psychics are not scientific, but they can be used in a scientific manner, as you said, using a blind protocol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and I would like to add, ideally, investigators would go in to see what is there, not to find ghosts (which is essentially what you said) . This is where, if possible, I like to bring in a reputable psychic, with no knowledge of the venue. Rarely has it happened that we were given something by the psychic that we could look up and verify later. This did happen with my sister group in Ontario. Really fascinating case where the psychic drew a picture of a dancing lady and they tied it in perfectly with the history of the place upon subsequent research. (that's all the details I can remember without looking it up).

Yes, I know that psychics are not scientific, but they can be used in a scientific manner, as you said, using a blind protocol.

Absolutely right. I've thought up a couple of experimental procedures I'd like to run with psychics, myself. It really can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But investigation of the paranormal can and does proceed according to scientific methods, sometimes even under laboratory conditions.

You just have to know how to design the study.

Fascinating, Hamlyn. Thank you for joining in. I am curious, could you possibly outline a design of a study for investigating the paranormal as you mentioned in this quote here? I'd be very interested in what you had to say, and would be curious to try whatever methods you could suggest.

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and I would like to add, ideally, investigators would go in to see what is there, not to find ghosts (which is essentially what you said) . This is where, if possible, I like to bring in a reputable psychic, with no knowledge of the venue. Rarely has it happened that we were given something by the psychic that we could look up and verify later. This did happen with my sister group in Ontario. Really fascinating case where the psychic drew a picture of a dancing lady and they tied it in perfectly with the history of the place upon subsequent research. (that's all the details I can remember without looking it up).

Yes, I know that psychics are not scientific, but they can be used in a scientific manner, as you said, using a blind protocol.

Yes, very interesting, indeed. I know a lot of paranormal groups frown on the idea of using a psychic, but I personally would not be averse to trying it myself, especially under the blind protocol. I wouldn't take their feelings, etc as evidence, but if a real psychic could point me in the right direction, I would glady accept the help.

Unfortunately, I don't know any good psychics. I'm trying to find one, actually...not so much for investigative reasons, but for personal interest. I posted a thread on the psychic phenomena board asking for a reading, but haven't yet found one who has impressed me. Still, I remain open minded. We'll see what happens!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is for my group in that we follow scientific methodology. Our website has the scientific method on the main page to explain how we go about investigations. Scientific can have a lot of different meanings, but at the very least any respectable paranormal team follows this methodology in my opinion. You definition of scientific may differ from others.

Introduction to the Scientific Method I. The scientific method has four steps

II. Testing hypotheses

III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?

VI. Conclusion

VII. References

Long post, but you never mentioned how you applied it to your investigations. Plus your link didn't work, so I couldn't go in to see your scientific method at work. What hypotheses have you come up with? Also, just wondering where your explanation came from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People in alledgedly haunted or active locations (especially indoors) have reported unexplained puffs of wind, breezes, and other air movements where there is no obvious cause like a vent or fan or window.

Yeah, I can attest to this. I had a pretty extreme experience that I do not discuss with anyone except the other individual present and his brother. (Of course, now I bring it up though this is basically the first time in years).

Mind you, I would have thought of the gust of wind as nothing if had it hadn't occurred amongst other bizarre happenings. In fact, when it occurred I thought it was kind of cliche' in that I heard that happens with paranormal activity, but I swear that it did occur...though the gust of wind was nothing compared to everything else that happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heack yeah it is. think abou tit this way, the definition of science is the study of what we dont know abou tto discover things. well people are investigating what they dont know about to discover things about that subject. SO in technicallity, it is scientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put it this way...

( IMO ) Scientists and P.I.'s have a lot in common. There's not much difference between the two. We just focus on various subjects. Scientists base their work on theory, so do P.I.'s. Until it can be proven with facts or backed up with solid evidence. Same as a P.I. We're not much different than how a scientist works. I think its safe to say that P.I. work is scientific.

However, it depends on the research groups techniques and methodology. For example... if a group is basing their research strictly on beliefs than I do not think that is being scientific. Some groups will use psychics or sensitives. Which is fine if they are true to their gift. But it is not 100% scientific basing an investigation on someone's belief system or feelings.

Long as you are using the tools as they are meant to be used, I think that's being scientific.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't scientific if you aren't taking a scientific approach regardless if you know how to use them. You have to have comparable data from various locations, both with paranormal activity and not. You can't wake up one day go to a location, use the equipment and say, hmm, that was scientific...yes. No, all you are doing is using tools in what you think is scientific but in all actuality it is nothing more than a tool of trade.

There is a difference between a scientific approach and to be scientific IN your approach. If your data isn't recorded, if you base your records off of one location you aren't proving much of anything but being a ghost hunter.

Paranormal Investigations CAN be scientific if you know ANYTHING about applied science, philosophy and the steps involved in a working theory.

I see a lot of people post numerous times, "In theory." Are any of you actually working toward a conclusion to that theory or are you just throwing the phrase around because you are waiting for someone else to provide the results?

If all you are doing is investigating various locations to find or even to disprove paranormal activity you aren't doing anything directed towards the field of science but directed toward the direct goal of your group.

My suggestion to those who throw, "In Theory" around, may want to sit down and reevaluate what exactly you are doing in this field and take a new approach.

If you throw the phrase around and are actually working toward and end result of that such theory, good for you.

If not....

Well, to each their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. Science studies many phenomena that can't be reproduced under controlled conditions. And many paranormal studies can be and have been conducted under controlled conditions.

To the first point, can you give an example? Even in wild animal studies, while the behaviour of the animals is unpredictable, there is no denying the animals exist and are there. However, with the paranormal even if we accept the premise that ghosts do exist there's no way of knowing if infact a ghost is in the specific location you are investigating.

To the second point, can you site those studies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't scientific if you aren't taking a scientific approach regardless if you know how to use them. You have to have comparable data from various locations, both with paranormal activity and not. You can't wake up one day go to a location, use the equipment and say, hmm, that was scientific...yes. No, all you are doing is using tools in what you think is scientific but in all actuality it is nothing more than a tool of trade.

There is a difference between a scientific approach and to be scientific IN your approach. If your data isn't recorded, if you base your records off of one location you aren't proving much of anything but being a ghost hunter.

Paranormal Investigations CAN be scientific if you know ANYTHING about applied science, philosophy and the steps involved in a working theory.

I see a lot of people post numerous times, "In theory." Are any of you actually working toward a conclusion to that theory or are you just throwing the phrase around because you are waiting for someone else to provide the results?

If all you are doing is investigating various locations to find or even to disprove paranormal activity you aren't doing anything directed towards the field of science but directed toward the direct goal of your group.

My suggestion to those who throw, "In Theory" around, may want to sit down and reevaluate what exactly you are doing in this field and take a new approach.

If you throw the phrase around and are actually working toward and end result of that such theory, good for you.

If not....

Well, to each their own.

This is a forum where all kinds of people are welcome to post their opinions and debate from a healthy point of view. We're not here to tell people what to do or how to do their jobs. There is nothing wrong with posting a theory, idea, or just discuss them. Just because people are discussing them doesn't mean they are or aren't proceeding to go with the ideas. Besides, some of the most outlandish ideas and theories that were given by mad scientists such as Einstein made some pretty huge discoveries. You have to start somewhere. A small idea can turn into something great.

If your tired of hearing theories don't read them. Don't belittle those just because they aren't as serious as you are.

Its the effort and heart that counts! I'm not picking a fight CW just saying. IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "theory" is definately used waaaaaaay to much in this field when people really mean an idea, a thought, an opinion, maybe a hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.