Roswell aliens theory revived by deathbed confession

[hamelekim]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21994224-2,00.html

More fuel to the fire. Should be interesting.

Lieutenant Walter Haut was the public relations officer at the base in 1947 and was the man who issued the original and subsequent press releases after the crash on the orders of the base commander, Colonel William Blanchard.

Haut died last year but left a sworn affidavit to be opened only after his death.

Last week, the text was released and asserts that the weather balloon claim was a cover story and that the real object had been recovered by the military and stored in a hangar.

He described seeing not just the craft, but alien bodies.

He wasn't the first Roswell witness to talk about alien bodies.

Local undertaker Glenn Dennis had long claimed that he was contacted by authorities at Roswell shortly after the crash and asked to provide a number of child-sized coffins.

When he arrived at the base, he was apparently told by a nurse (who later disappeared) that a UFO had crashed and that small humanoid extraterrestrials had been recovered.

But Haut is the only one of the original participants to claim to have seen alien bodies.

[-Fran-]

Local undertaker Glenn Dennis had long claimed that he was contacted by authorities at Roswell shortly after the crash and asked to provide a number of child-sized coffins.


Yeah, if you really want to cover up such a thing, you'd go to the local undertaker and order coffins, that should do it :rolleyes:

[Solus]

The "theory" has been revived? As far I knew it hadn't died yet. :rolleyes:

[hamelekim]

The "theory" has been revived? As far I knew it hadn't died yet. :rolleyes:

Well, given more credibility in some peoples eyes. considering the source was the same person who first announced it and then denied it.

[dsmith]

I think this is an interesting development to the Roswell story. I don't buy it. The undertaker part just seems ridiculous. Why would they need coffins? Wouldn't they be studying the anatomy of these alien beings rather than putting them to rest?

[Jalbietz]

Sounds like this guy either wanted to secure his place in UFO history or he has a wicked sense of humor... or both.

[sinclairmcevoy]

I think this is an interesting development to the Roswell story. I don't buy it. The undertaker part just seems ridiculous. Why would they need coffins? Wouldn't they be studying the anatomy of these alien beings rather than putting them to rest?Exactly.

[Questioninggeller]

Yeah, if you really want to cover up such a thing, you'd go to the local undertaker and order coffins, that should do it :rolleyes:

"Child-sized coffins" !?!

Like,

...the myth that children have been victims of widespread ritual and Satanic abuse.

Daily Telegraph article (http://www.rickross.com/reference/satanism/satanism4.html)

How do they know it was ordered for aliens? Could it be a Satanic plot?

Even if there were coffins ordered, why would it be linked to UFOs and/or Satanism...? Why would a nurse pass that type of information to a local civilian?

[dsmith]

Why would a nurse pass that type of information to a local civilian?

We'll never know. She has apparently disappeared.

ETA: I used the word She. I don't know that the nurse was female.

[Astrophotographer]

Sounds like this guy either wanted to secure his place in UFO history or he has a wicked sense of humor... or both.

More than likely, Walter Haut wanted to cement his place in UFO lore. There are some interesting points about his new story. You see he signed a new affidavit just before he passed on. Of course, in his original affidavit ten years before this, the story was different. UFOlogists will suggest he could not tell the truth back then even though all these stories were out there long before he decided to tell the new version of events.

In 1947, Haut was supposedly rebuked by Washington DC for issuing the press release about finding a crashed disc. He denied this in the 1980s even though several witnesses said the same thing and recalled Haut being stressed out over calls he received from DC. It may or may not have had something to do with his resigning his commission a year later.

Haut also was the guy who led researchers to two of the biggest liars of the Roswell legend, Frank Kaufmann and Glenn Dennis (the mortician). Both of their stories are now rejected as tall tales despite Haut endorsing their tales (he even called Frank Kaufmanns tales golden - but his documentation was found to be nothing more than a forgery).

Is it any wonder this guy decided to tell a more elaborate tale before he died? Of course, UFOlogists will find his new story compelling and repeat it as gospel.

[Astrophotographer]

We'll never know. She has apparently disappeared.

ETA: I used the word She. I don't know that the nurse was female.

She supposedly disappeared according to Dennis's tale. However, the USAF found a nurse that matched the description. Her name was Eileen Fanton. She did not disappear but was discharged because of an illness not related to any alien spaceship crash. Of course, Dennis gave everyone a fake name that nobody could track down. There was never a nurse named Naomi Self (or Sipes - Dennis changed the name at least once).

[dsmith]

She supposedly disappeared according to Dennis's tale. However, the USAF found a nurse that matched the description. Her name was Eileen Fanton. She did not disappear but was discharged because of an illness not related to any alien spaceship crash. Of course, Dennis gave everyone a fake name that nobody could track down. There was never a nurse named Naomi Self (or Sipes - Dennis changed the name at least once).

AP, did she ever give her account of what happened?

[Tricky]

I'm skeptical of this "sworn affadavit". It seems odd that he would want such a momentous story to break after his death. On the other hand, if such an affadavit were faked (or Haut were tricked into doing it), it would be of tremendous value to the fakers to wait until Haut could not possibly contradict it.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So what was found at Roswell? A lot of broken pieces of some mysterious materials? Or an alien craft full of tiny aliens (or possibly tiny alien bodies)?

If it is the second, how is the first story explained? You know, the one with all the original quotes and pictures.

Like a good fishing story Roswell got better with time.

Given all the lying and confabulation involved, I suggest that this "death bed confession" is just one last joke.

(Of course my theory is that the saucer collided with the Mogul balloon.) :eye-poppi

[pchams]

This will evolve into a fine religion some day.

[Zep]

So a death-bed confession is FAR more believable and true than any other confession? Is it, in fact, infallibly the truth?

[CLD]

Haug 'saw the alien bodies'


Whe a newspaper story doesn't bother to spell a person's name correctly, that might be an indication it is taken less than seriously.

[Astrophotographer]

AP, did she ever give her account of what happened?


Fanton was dead long before Roswell became a story worth telling. It is easy to make up names so your story can not be checked. The USAF discovered the records of Fanton in the 1990s and felt she was a pretty good match to Dennis's nurse. However, it is unlikely that Dennis even spoke to her or was friends with her. He just used her person as a model to create a fictional nurse. You can read this in the 1997 report at:

http://www.gl.iit.edu/wadc/history/roswell/roswell.pdf

Section 2.1 describes Fanton and how she closely matches Dennis's description of Naomi Self/Sipes. However, she did not die in a plane crash and did not retire from the military until the 1950s (I incorrectly said she was discharged after Roswell)!

[Beady]

So a death-bed confession is FAR more believable and true than any other confession? Is it, in fact, infallibly the truth?

Legally, a deathbed confession is treated as being given under oath, and is therefore considered true in the absence of contradictory evidence.

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

That settles it. When I die I want to go saying something like "the money.... the gold.... hidden.... *gasp* in the.... in the..... urgh!"

It'll drive them mental. :)

[Zep]

Legally, a deathbed confession is treated as being given under oath, and is therefore considered true in the absence of contradictory evidence.No, what I meant was: Is it any more believable than the continuous pack of lies issued from the same person leading up to their death?

What about a deathbed confession suddenly makes it infallible? Not legally but logically?

[tkingdoll]

How old was this dude when he died anyway? Could this not just be the ramblings of a senile old man? My brother-in-law's grandmother is very old and in a care home, and she often talks about the days out she's had, or things she's been doing that day, when in actual fact she's been in the same chair the whole time.

Lots of people report seeing ghosts when they are close to death, I believe that's something to do with a chemical release? Or something physical going on in the brain, anyway.

My point being, what sort of state was this guy in when he made this confession? Also, did he make it spontaneously or was he prompted? There's a huge difference between "son, I have to tell you something" and "dad, you know that Roswell stuff..."

[Beady]

What about a deathbed confession suddenly makes it infallible? Not legally but logically?

It is presumed that if the, umm, "affiant" is aware of his impending demise, then he has nothing to lose (and subjectively may have something to gain) by telling the truth as he believes it. So what he says may not be infallible, to use your word, but you still have to deal with the apparent fact that the deceased thought that it was.

Which brings up a point: Was this a true deathbed confession, made in the shadow of immediately-impending death, or was it an affidavit written some while before-hand? I read the article a couple of hours ago, and have forgotten the details. If the latter, it would carry a lot less weight.

[Astrophotographer]

Was this a true deathbed confession, made in the shadow of immediately-impending death, or was it an affidavit written some while before-hand? I read the article a couple of hours ago, and have forgotten the details. If the latter, it would carry a lot less weight.

No. It was not a "deathbed" confession. Haut started telling this story about 2000 and signed an affidavit in 2002. He died in 2005!

[Astrophotographer]

How old was this dude when he died anyway? Could this not just be the ramblings of a senile old man?

83. I don't think it was ramblings but Haut trying to generate some sort of legacy. He wanted to be remembered as a person at the center of the greatest event in human history and not remembered as the 1st Lt, who goofed and sent out a press release on something that was called a flying disc but turned out to be weather balloon materials. Which would you want to be remembered as?

[tkingdoll]

83. I don't think it was ramblings but Haut trying to generate some sort of legacy. He wanted to be remembered as a person at the center of the greatest event in human history and not remembered as the 1st Lt, who goofed and sent out a press release on something that was called a flying disc but turned out to be weather balloon materials. Which would you want to be remembered as?

I think that's fair, but I would still want to know his medical and mental condition in later life before passing judgement. He may have been completely bonkers.

[Beady]

Haut started telling this story about 2000 and signed an affidavit in 2002. He died in 2005!

So, I would give it no more weight than anything else he ever said.

Hmm, another question: Was his affidavit a sworn statement, or merely notorized? Again, if it was the former you have to assume he believed what he was saying to be the truth; if the latter, it just proves the statement wasn't forged. If it was neither sworn nor notarized, then both its veracity and authenticity can be questioned.

[Moochie]

Given that gumph sells, and that the site mentioned is Murdoch-owned (Fox), I'd say, nah.

M.

[Astrophotographer]

So, I would give it no more weight than anything else he ever said.

Hmm, another question: Was his affidavit a sworn statement, or merely notorized? Again, if it was the former you have to assume he believed what he was saying to be the truth; if the latter, it just proves the statement wasn't forged. If it was neither sworn nor notarized, then both its veracity and authenticity can be questioned.


Notorized and witnessed. You can read it and plenty of crashed spaceship spin at:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Haut.html

[petra10]

Please watch my avatar for the real truth about Roswell.The footage was shot by a very reliable source

[SezMe]

I was driving home from the Dodgers game last night around midnight and tuned into Art Bell to catch up on the latest woo and he was all over this like ugly on a monkey. He had on the guy who says he was given the original of the document. More here (http://www.roswellinvestigator.com/roswellcentral/).

[Rasmus55]

Legally, a deathbed confession is treated as being given under oath, and is therefore considered true in the absence of contradictory evidence.


Sorry, but are you an attorney? In which jurisdiction are deathbed confessions treated as occuring under oath? I know of no such rule. I do know of a rule against hearsay and exceptions to that rule. In the FRE, so called deathbed confessions can be an exception to the rule against hearsay and therefore admissible in court if offered for the right reason. Make no mistake, however, such utterances are still hearsay and not taken as something made under oath. Consider why; what penalties would a person think attach to him if he made a declaration thinking he was just about to die? Few if any. Of course, this highlights the strange paradox of this exception; namely, the assumption that a person just about to die is motivated to tell the truth. This is largely a judeao-christian remnant in the law; the act of contrition and forgiveness, etc. You can easily, however, imagine a situation where someone lies at death to frame an enemy, etc, which highlights the suspicion with which such utterances should be approached. So we allow it in just as evidence alone, but it is not testimony.

Also, the exception, under the FRE, is called "dying declarations", not death confession. For this to apply, a person would have to believe that death was imminent; a matter of seconds away. Whether he died is actually irrelevant, it is his belief he will die that controls; more the merrier if he actually does die.

In this case, it is unclear whether his claim would qualify as a dying declaration. We would have to know if he made it just before he thought he would die. How would we know that he thought he was about to die? Well, he would say, "I'm about to die, but I must tell you..." That is the easiest way. And, you could even argue that if he said this just before he died while knowing his condition was one of the death, that might qualify.

Finally, with respect to the affidavit, I would consider it worthless. I say this for much the same reason that others criticize the dying declarations exception. The pains and penalties of perjury cannot attach to him if he is dead. What legal consequences are there for him? None. So it loses force. If I were the judge, and this were a civil case of some kind, I would not allow the affidavit unless other grounds were first established such as inavailability of the declarant and no other way to prove the matter at hand (but not to prove the truth of the declarant's words).

[SezMe]

Rasmus55, what is FRE?

[Beady]

I know of no such rule.

What does that have to do with it?

No, I'm not a lawyer, but I've had plenty of them accuse me of abuse of power. I generally ignore those remarks and concentrate on the merits of their arguments. The balance of your own seems to be just a wordier restatement of what I already said.

Rasmus55, what is FRE?

Federal Rules of Evidence (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/).

ETA: Astrophotographer: "Notorized and witnessed." All that means is that his signature is authentic.

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, if you really want to cover up such a thing, you'd go to the local undertaker and order coffins, that should do it

Yep, order child coffins in a small town. No one will notice...

Especially when you have your own units for handling bodies.

[Correa Neto]

Affidavit...

The same sort of evidence used to back what seems to be Edgar Cayce's better documented cure.

Must be real... Yeah, must be.

[Rodney]

Affidavit...

The same sort of evidence used to back what seems to be Edgar Cayce's better documented cure.

Must be real... Yeah, must be.
If the affidavit is submitted by a leading citizen of a town, as was the case with the affidavit submitted by Professor Charles Dietrich regarding the cure Edgar Cayce effected regarding Dietrich's daughter Aime, do you think that has the same credibility as an affidavit submitted by the town drunk?

[Moochie]

If the affidavit is submitted by a leading citizen of a town, as was the case with the affidavit submitted by Professor Charles Dietrich regarding the cure Edgar Cayce effected regarding Dietrich's daughter Aime, do you think that has the same credibility as an affidavit submitted by the town drunk?

Wouldn't that depend on whether the "town drunk" was inebriated at the time?

M.

[Beady]

If the affidavit is submitted by a leading citizen of a town...do you think that has the same credibility as an affidavit submitted by the town drunk?

Depends on whether the town drunk's story is corroborated, the facts and the context, among other things. Town drunks don't normally fill out affidavits in a vacuum.

[NoZed Avenger]

What does that have to do with it?

No, I'm not a lawyer, but I've had plenty of them accuse me of abuse of power. I generally ignore those remarks and concentrate on the merits of their arguments. The balance of your own seems to be just a wordier restatement of what I already said.


There is a big distinction (legally, at least) between a dying declaration being admissible versus being either assumed as true or "considered true in the absence of contradictory evidence."

That was the point I think he was trying to make. It may not seem like a big distinction to everyone, but from a legal/evidenciary sense, the difference is quite substantial.

[JonnyFive]

(snip)

Also, the exception, under the FRE, is called "dying declarations", not death confession. For this to apply, a person would have to believe that death was imminent; a matter of seconds away. Whether he died is actually irrelevant, it is his belief he will die that controls; more the merrier if he actually does die.

(snip)

It's been a few years since I took "law and evidence," and I'm not a lawyer, but that's what I recall as well about the Federal rules, and I would imagine state rules are similar. I'm not familiar with any laws that regards deathbed confessions as any being equivalent to sworn testimony, unless they actually do happen to be sworn testimony.

But, according to the FRE themselves, that only appears to apply to "causes or circumstances" surrounding the death:


(2) Statement under belief of impending death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant's death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. (ETA: Emphasis mine)

So it wouldn't even apply if it were deathbed confession, because it has nothing to do with causes of death (IIRC, this rule is to allow in court statements to the effect of "Mr. X just shot me" made by the dying party to someone else). I wonder if there are other statutes regarding this.

And it wasn't even a deathbed confession, so I suppose the issue is moot anyway.

[Correa Neto]

If the affidavit is submitted by a leading citizen of a town, as was the case with the affidavit submitted by Professor Charles Dietrich regarding the cure Edgar Cayce effected regarding Dietrich's daughter Aime, do you think that has the same credibility as an affidavit submitted by the town drunk?
What Beady said.

What sort of pieces of evidence are backing the affidavits?

That was an easy catch...

[JonnyFive]

What Beady said.

What sort of pieces of evidence are backing the affidavits?

(snip)

Well, in this case I think there's two main pieces of evidence:

-Jack
-Squat

[Rodney]

What Beady said.

What sort of pieces of evidence are backing the affidavits?

That was an easy catch...
So I guess no one has ever been acquitted or convicted based on the credibility of witnesses. Hard evidence is always available, and prosecutors and defense attorneys who round up credible witnesses are just wasting their time.

[Correa Neto]

Strawman...

[Beady]

It may not seem like a big distinction to everyone, but from a legal/evidenciary sense, the difference is quite substantial.

Not that great, really. If it could be treated as primary evidence (a statement given under oath, for example), the affidavit could stand alone. As secondary evidence it would need to be corroborated, but that's only a matter of finding at least one more affidavit, an independently-sourced media account, or whatever.

[Rasmus55]

There is a big distinction (legally, at least) between a dying declaration being admissible versus being either assumed as true or "considered true in the absence of contradictory evidence."

That was the point I think he was trying to make. It may not seem like a big distinction to everyone, but from a legal/evidenciary sense, the difference is quite substantial.

Yes, that's right. I am an attorney. The dying declarations exception to the rule against hearsay is one of the most bitterly contested exceptions there is, and for good reason. Even if allowed in, the other side always points out that it is not the same as evidence given under oath. The reason is because it wasn't given under oath. It can be very difficult to get this in as an exception. I've seen attorneys fight tooth and nail over it; you would not believe the power that a dying declaration can have in court. In any case, I wasn't trying to be offensive. It's just that this particular exception always gets my blood running. I think that what you're really getting at with "assumed true" unless proven otherwise is the technique called a rebuttable presumption.

[Rasmus55]

It's been a few years since I took "law and evidence," and I'm not a lawyer, but that's what I recall as well about the Federal rules, and I would imagine state rules are similar. I'm not familiar with any laws that regards deathbed confessions as any being equivalent to sworn testimony, unless they actually do happen to be sworn testimony.

But, according to the FRE themselves, that only appears to apply to "causes or circumstances" surrounding the death:

(ETA: Emphasis mine)

So it wouldn't even apply if it were deathbed confession, because it has nothing to do with causes of death (IIRC, this rule is to allow in court statements to the effect of "Mr. X just shot me" made by the dying party to someone else). I wonder if there are other statutes regarding this.

And it wasn't even a deathbed confession, so I suppose the issue is moot anyway.

Yes, that's right. I re-read my post and see that I ommitted that element. It must be about the cause or purpose of the declarant's death. The point being is that it is a very specific exception and is not given under oath; it will be attacked as such.

[JonnyFive]

Yes, that's right. I re-read my post and see that I ommitted that element. It must be about the cause or purpose of the declarant's death. The point being is that it is a very specific exception and is not given under oath; it will be attacked as such.

Definitely. In general, from what I remember, the various exceptions to the FRE pretty much just get the evidence in the door. I don't recall any that elevate that evidence to any status above regular testimony.

[NoZed Avenger]

Not that great, really. If it could be treated as primary evidence (a statement given under oath, for example), the affidavit could stand alone. As secondary evidence it would need to be corroborated, but that's only a matter of finding at least one more affidavit, an independently-sourced media account, or whatever.


I have to disagree. There is a big difference between saying that a statement is admissible -- meaning the jury can hear it, but is not required to give the statement any particular weight -- and saying that a statement is presumed true, and must be taken as true without a rebuttal.

[trvlr2]

So I guess no one has ever been acquitted or convicted based on the credibility of witnesses. Hard evidence is always available, and prosecutors and defense attorneys who round up credible witnesses are just wasting their time.

Rodney-I am certain persons have been tried based on the credibility of witnesses.
I am just as certain that miscarriage of justice has been done, by the same means.
A court of law does not necessarily seek "truth". Evidence accepted by the court , may not be rigorously extracted
" truth".

If you ever sit on a jury, please remember what I have said.:jaw-dropp

[Tricky]

Hey, I didn't realize we had an anniversary coming up. Looks like a big ol' party (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070708/NATION/707080312). Boy, the woo density in Roswell must be pegging the meters.

ROSWELL, N.M. — If you truly believe a UFO and its crew of bug-eyed aliens came crashing down here 60 years ago, rest assured: You're not alone.
At least 35,000 people have descended on Roswell this weekend for the 2007 Amazing Roswell UFO Festival to commemorate a purported flying saucer crash on a nearby ranch in July 1947.

They've even got a band with an alian drummer... um... computer generated. But here is the greatest quote. It is so well defines the prototypical UFO believer, and indeed most woo-woos.

Guy Malone is one of the official organizers of the weekend event. "There are a lot of views expressed here and I share them all," he says. "Angels, fairies, demons, succubus, ETs and aliens. They might all be the same phenomena."

Yup. They are. Just not the kind of phenomena he's thinking of.

[Warge]

Hey, I didn't realize we had an anniversary coming up. Looks like a big ol' party (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070708/NATION/707080312). Boy, the woo density in Roswell must be pegging the meters.


They've even got a band with an alian drummer... um... computer generated. But here is the greatest quote. It is so well defines the prototypical UFO believer, and indeed most woo-woos.


Yup. They are. Just not the kind of phenomena he's thinking of.

I'd say it's called schizophrenia or drug-induced hallucinations and/or psychosis.

[Astrophotographer]

I enjoy where they compare it to a "trekkie" convention. Like "trekkies", some seem to have a problem differentiating between myth and reality.

[delphi_ote]

Okay. Let me get this straight. For this Super Top Ultra Secret operation, the military ordered coffins from the local undertaker instead of building a few wooden boxes themselves. "They" are capable of detecting our alien overlords and keeping them hidden from everyone, but "they" can't make wooden boxes without expert help?

[Warge]

Okay. Let me get this straight. For this Super Top Ultra Secret operation, the military ordered coffins from the local undertaker instead of building a few wooden boxes themselves. "They" are capable of detecting our alien overlords and keeping them hidden from everyone, but "they" can't make wooden boxes without expert help?

Well, you can't bury aliens without some kind of standard - I mean, it's not like they were burying dead cattle... :rolleyes:

[The Atheist]

Sounds like this guy either wanted to secure his place in UFO history or he has a wicked sense of humor... or both.

I'll buy that, it was certainly the way my mind went when I read the piece.

"Hmm. How can I ensure my name goes down in history, revered for all time?" Works for me; smart bloke, in my opinion.

(Of course my theory is that the saucer collided with the Mogul balloon.) :eye-poppi

You realise "they" will come and get you now.

This will evolve into a fine religion some day.

Hasn't it already? When people are being abducted and probed anally, I think those traditions are right up with censers and large, lowercase "T"s.

Well, in this case I think there's two main pieces of evidence:

-Jack
-Squat

That is, after all, the requirement of every conspiracy theory, from god to 9/11 to Roswell, the complete absence of evidence.

If it pleases people to think there are a species of beings, outside of humans themselves, who are stupid enough to be able to cross trillions of kilometres of uncharted space to crash in New Mexico; let them.

That's why UFOs will always endure - easiest to fake, impossible to prove wrong, highly attractive proposition.

[Pope130]

Okay. Let me get this straight. For this Super Top Ultra Secret operation, the military ordered coffins from the local undertaker instead of building a few wooden boxes themselves. "They" are capable of detecting our alien overlords and keeping them hidden from everyone, but "they" can't make wooden boxes without expert help?

This is one of the aspects of the story that has bothered me a bit (there are other aspects that have bothered me a whole lot). Not just: "Why couldn't they nail together some boxes?", but "Why couldn't they use a normal coffin?". Were the dead aliens too small to fit? Now, if it was a nine foot tall Kinnamett on the other hand they have a problem.

Robert

[delphi_ote]

This is one of the aspects of the story that has bothered me a bit (there are other aspects that have bothered me a whole lot). Not just: "Why couldn't they nail together some boxes?", but "Why couldn't they use a normal coffin?". Were the dead aliens too small to fit? Now, if it was a nine foot tall Kinnamett on the other hand they have a problem.

Robert
Good point. Apparently "they" get a little Goldilocks when it comes to transporting alien corpses.

[luchog]

This will evolve into a fine religion some day.

What do you mean "someday"? (http://www.grayvids.com/alien-religion-0.html)

I could have sworn there were several already. (http://www.rael.org/)