135 Phil Mickelson (U.S.)68 67

137 Scott Gardiner (Australia) 70 67

Nick Watney (U.S.) 67 70

George McNeill (U.S.)69 68

138 Rory McIlroy (Britain) 67 71

Lee Westwood (Britain) 70 68

Rod Pampling (Australia) 69 69

Jason Kokrak (U.S.)68 70

Derek Ernst (U.S.) 67 71

139 Lucas Glover (U.S.)68 71

David Lynn (Britain) 71 68

Robert Garrigus (U.S.) 67 72

140 D.A. Points (U.S.) 71 69

Kevin Streelman (U.S.) 68 72

Russell Henley (U.S.)69 71

Zach Johnson (U.S.)68 72

Brian Harman (U.S.)70 70

Daniel Summerhays (U.S.) 67 73

Sergio Garcia (Spain)72 68

Jordan Spieth (U.S.) 69 71

141 Ted Potter Jr. (U.S.)71 70

Ross Fisher (Britain)70 71

Nate Smith (U.S.)67 74

David Hearn (Canada) 69 72

Robert Karlsson (Sweden) 69 72

142 Dicky Pride (U.S.) 71 71

Angel Cabrera (Argentina)73 69

Kyle Stanley (U.S.)74 68

Stuart Appleby (Australia) 71 71

Vaughn Taylor (U.S.) 70 72

Shawn Stefani (U.S.) 69 73

Ryan Moore (U.S.)67 75

Trevor Immelman (South Africa) 70 72

James Driscoll (U.S.)70 72

143 Jimmy Walker (U.S.)71 72

John Rollins (U.S.)69 74

Luke Guthrie (U.S.)74 69

Lee Dong-Hwan (South Korea)72 71

John Senden (Australia)70 73

Boo Weekley (U.S.) 68 75

Richard Lee (U.S.) 73 70

Chris Kirk (U.S.)72 71

Gary Woodland (U.S.) 70 73

Steve Marino (U.S.)71 72

Bud Cauley (U.S.)70 73

Brad Fritsch (Canada)71 72

144 Bo Van Pelt (U.S.) 74 70

Kevin Stadler (U.S.) 73 71

Roberto Castro (U.S.)71 73

Martin Flores (U.S.) 73 71

Charles Howell III (U.S.)72 72

Kevin Chappell (U.S.)73 71

Casey Wittenberg (U.S.)73 71

Lee Williams (U.S.)73 71

Henrik Norlander (Sweden)74 70

Webb Simpson (U.S.)70 74

Rickie Fowler (U.S.) 72 72

Patrick Reed (U.S.)70 74

Peter Tomasulo (U.S.)71 73

145 Brendon De Jonge (Zimbabwe)74 71

John Merrick (U.S.)74 71

Steven Bowditch (Australia)69 76

Pat Perez (U.S.) 76 69

Scott Brown (U.S.) 74 71

Hunter Mahan (U.S.)73 72

Mike Weir (Canada) 72 73

Jonathan Byrd (U.S.) 72 73

Josh Teater (U.S.) 72 73

146 Brian Davis (Britain)72 74

Geoff Ogilvy (Australia) 74 72

Robert Allenby (Australia) 76 70

Luke List (U.S.) 71 75

Doug LaBelle II (U.S.) 74 72

Matteo Manassero (Italy) 71 75

Matt Jones (Australia) 73 73

James Hahn (U.S.)72 74

Chris Stroud (U.S.)71 75

Ryo Ishikawa (Japan) 73 73

Tommy Gainey (U.S.)74 72

Hunter Haas (U.S.) 75 71

Kevin Sutherland (U.S.)73 73

Will Claxton (U.S.)73 73

Justin Hicks (U.S.)74 72

147 DNQ Nicolas Colsaerts (Belgium)70 77

Scott Langley (U.S.) 73 74

Jesper Parnevik (Sweden) 72 75

Martin Laird (Britain) 72 75

Sean O'Hair (U.S.) 72 75

Rory Sabbatini (South Africa)70 77

John Huh (U.S.)74 73

Tag Ridings (U.S.) 75 72

Colt Knost (U.S.)74 73

David Lingmerth (Sweden) 74 73

Chez Reavie (U.S.) 73 74

Brandt Jobe (U.S.) 75 72

Michael Letzig (U.S.)74 73

Bobby Gates (U.S.) 71 76

148 DNQ Troy Matteson (U.S.) 72 76

Neal Lancaster (U.S.)75 73

Bubba Watson (U.S.)72 76

Jason Bohn (U.S.)71 77

Joey Snyder III (U.S.) 76 72

Jack Fields (U.S.) 73 75

Andres Gonzales (U.S.) 77 71

Martin Kaymer (Germany)72 76

Andrew Svoboda (U.S.)70 78

Donald Constable (U.S.)73 75

Jeff Gove (U.S.) 72 76

Jim Herman (U.S.)72 76

149 DNQ Fabian Gomez (Argentina) 73 76

Chad Campbell (U.S.) 75 74

Brendan Steele (U.S.)75 74

Jeff Maggert (U.S.)73 76

Tom Gillis (U.S.)76 73

Andres Romero (Argentina)74 75

Camilo Villegas (Colombia) 74 75

Cameron Percy (Australia)76 73

Charles Frost (U.S.) 74 75

Morgan Hoffmann (U.S.) 78 71

Joe Ogilvie (U.S.) 72 77

Noh Seung-Yul (South Korea)74 75

Bill Haas (U.S.) 79 70

Johnson Wagner (U.S.)75 74

J.J. Henry (U.S.)73 76

Wes Short Jr. (U.S.) 74 75

Robert Streb (U.S.)75 74

Darron Stiles (U.S.) 77 72

Joey McLister (U.S.) 77 72

Kelly Mitchum (U.S.) 73 76

John Peterson (U.S.) 73 76

150 DNQ Ben Curtis (U.S.)74 76

Ken Duke (U.S.)74 76

Aaron Watkins (U.S.) 76 74

Jerry Kelly (U.S.) 73 77

Scott Stallings (U.S.) 77 73

Michael Bradley (U.S.) 77 73

151 DNQ Ricky Barnes (U.S.)74 77

Scott Verplank (U.S.)76 75

David Mathis (U.S.)78 73

152 DNQ Henrik Stenson (Sweden)76 76

Ben Kohles (U.S.)78 74

Cameron Tringale (U.S.)73 79

Alistair Presnell (Australia)76 76

Erik Compton (U.S.)76 76

Jonas Blixt (Sweden) 76 76

Steve LeBrun (U.S.)77 75

Justin Bolli (U.S.)77 75

Eric Meierdierks (U.S.)76 76

153 DNQ Brian Stuard (U.S.)78 75

Nicholas Thompson (U.S.) 75 78

Charlie Beljan (U.S.)78 75

Park Jin (South Korea) 76 77

Stephen Ames (Canada)77 76

154 DNQ Paul Haley II (U.S.) 79 75

155 DNQ Padraig Harrington (Ireland) 80 75

Greg Owen (Britain)77 78

The zoo dwellers also sparked her desire to help improve the lives of elephants in captivity and the chances for survival of those in the wild. "An Apology to Elephants," a documentary produced and narrated by Tomlin, is one result. It debuted this week on HBO.

"I had done some animal activism" and donated money, Tomlin said, but becoming enlightened about elephants prompted her to focus on their plight.

The film is an unabashed polemic, calling for improved treatment of elephants in zoos and an end to the use of the animals as entertainment, which the film contends must invariably involve abuse. Circus operators do not have a say, although a zoo that has overhauled its elephant habitat weighs in.

"An Apology to Elephants" also outlines the animal's importance to ecosystems and the dangers faced by wild African and Asian elephants, including habitat destruction and poachers after their highly marketable tusks.

Last month, leading conservation groups warned that the illegal ivory trade is growing and is hastening the decline of Africa's already endangered elephant population.

"The elephants became so symbolic to me, the evidence (of their treatment) so clear, and I wanted to tie it together and show how inured we are to that around the planet," said Tomlin, an Oscar-nominated actress ("Nashville") and comedian.

Feld Entertainment, the parent company of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, said the film misrepresents its practices.

"Clearly, it's a distortion of the animal care we provide 24 hours a day, seven days a week for this magnificent species. We have a team of animal care professionals and veterinarians who spend their lives caring for these animals," said spokesman Stephen Payne.

The film also failed to include the company's conservation efforts that Feld said are international and done in concert with zoos and researchers. "As opposed to people who make one-off documentaries or protest, we put our money where our mouth is," Payne added.

The film's images are dramatic, some by contrast: We see a line of elephants silhouetted majestically against an orange African sun as well as a solitary pachyderm confined within a zoo enclosure. There also are disturbing shots, including elephants prodded by sharp-edged rods and footage of the 1903 death of a Coney Island elephant that, according to the film, had turned violent because of abuse. Thomas Edison agreed to electrocute the animal named Topsy to illustrate a certain type of current.

The film spotlights those who are working for elephants today, including the Oakland Zoo, which has implemented new methods of managing the animals, including more space to roam, and a Northern California wild animal sanctuary that helps remove elephants from circuses and zoos.

The grounds are home to elephants Gypsy and Wanda, who performed for the same circus before being split up. When the pair ended up 20 years later at the sanctuary, they "went crazy and are inseparable," said Pat Derby, the former animal trainer who co-founded the Performing Animal Welfare Society, or PAWS, which operates the sanctuary.

Their new life, in nature and without the demands of performing, represents her dream, Derby says in "An Apology to Elephants." The film is dedicated to Derby, who died in February of cancer at age 69.

"Knowing they have some days or even years of safety and peace and dignity, that's the big reward," said Derby in the documentary directed by Amy Schatz.

Tomlin said her hope is that people take heed of what elephants face. Her narration, written by her longtime partner, Jane Wagner, is measured and eloquent, but she's passionate in conversation as she decries "inequity and injustice and suffering" and encourages others to get involved.

"The first thing is to be conscious of the ivory trade. Don't foster anything like admiring ivory objects or people wanting them," she said. "Just to have that consciousness affects the movement of things. It takes years, but it's like getting people to wear seatbelts."

___

Online:

http://www.hbo.com

____

Lynn Elber is a national television columnist for The Associated Press. She can be reached at lelber(at)ap.org and on Twitter (at)lynnelber.

Some parents have said that Haights provaccination message has no place at preschool, that its disrespectful and patronizing, that the decision to vaccinate a child is nobody elses business. One mother got so emotional that she broke out in hives. But Haight thinks a conversation is critical, and the latest research published in the journal Pediatrics backs her up.

Im just trying to let people know that if you dont vaccinate your children, it might affect other childrens health, says Haight. It directly affects a community of young children. How do we not talk about this?

(MORE:)

With so much confusing and even misleading information about vaccine safety available on the Internet, its no surprise that parents are influenced by their friends attitudes when it comes to immunizing their kids.

In the study, researchers surveyed 196 parents of children 18 months or younger in King County Haights stomping ground which has a vaccination rate thats typically below the national average and has been gripped by a , along with areas in Vermont, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Among the parents in the study, 126 followed the nationally recommended childhood-vaccinationfrom the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The 70 other parents forged their own paths: 28 delayed vaccines, 37 partially vaccinated and five didnt vaccinate at all.

At least 95% of parents in both groups indicated that they had consulted their people network for insight into making vaccination decisions. Parents reported they paid the most attention to their spouse or partners opinion. Pediatricians were next in line, followed by friends and relatives. (Interestingly, 10% of parents who followed CDC guidelines the conformers and 12% of parents who didnt the nonconformers failed to list doctors among the top five people in their network.) Heres why thats important: 72% of nonconformers friends and relatives advised them to disregard CDC recommendations compared with just 13% of conformers friends and family members. In other words, says study author Emily Brunson, changing parents attitudes about vaccines may be a matter of influencing the people who are influencing parents in the first place.

(MORE: )

The significance of naysayers parents networks blew any other variable out of the water, says Brunson, who conducted the research as an anthropology graduate student at the University of Washington. It was more important in terms of predicting what parents decide to do than any other factor, including parents own opinions.

The effect was overwhelming, particularly for parents whose network mostly recommended not following immunization guidelines; they were more than 1,500 times more likely to not adhere to the CDCs vaccination schedules for their children than other parents. Even parents whose networks were more compliant about following immunization schedules (comprising 26% to 50% of people who advised against the guidelines) were 31 times more likely to not vaccinate as recommended. Parents people networks matter a ton, says Brunson, now an assistant professor of anthropology at Texas State University. Having those conversations with your sister, with your parent, with your friends matter a lot more than we thought.

Parents who didnt follow vaccination advice were also more likely to have extensive source networks troves of books, websites and magazine articles they turned to for vaccine-related information. On average, 59% of nonconformers sources many of which persist in promoting a widely recommend ignoring CDC guidelines compared with 20% of conformers sources.

(MORE:)

Although the proportion of zero dosers otherwise known as antivaxers has stayed stable at less than 2%, the number of moms and dads who dont trust that vaccines will do what experts say they will is growing. In the U.S., where parents havent seen firsthand the deadly consequences of vaccine-preventable diseases, pediatricians are frustrated about spending more and more time defending the importance of immunization. What used to be a staple of childhood health is now viewed with at least some skepticism by most parents, including the highly educated. Theyre cherry-picking which vaccines they find acceptable or joining the ranks of the delayers, the 12% of parents who , spacing out shots for years, which experts argue only extends the time their kids are susceptible to disease or capable of passing it on to others. A recentshowed that multiple vaccinations on a single day, which worried some parents, dont pose a hazard to young children; in fact, older vaccines exposed toddlers to more antigens than newly formulated ones do. There isnt a lot of trust, says pediatrician Wendy Sue Swanson, who was inspired by the growing number of hesitant parents to start blogging about vaccines as . Theyve all heard the story that Jenny McCarthy told: the day her kid got the MMR shot, the light went out of his eyes.

The findings highlight a potentially new strategy that public-health officials should consider when getting out the message that childhood immunizations are important for childrens health. It may be time, they say, to extend their reach beyond doctors and start paying attention to other people who influence parents vaccination decisions, namely friends and family whom moms and dads list as part of their social network. If we want to improve vaccination rates, communication needs to be directed to the public at large, says Brunson.

(MORE: )

Thats the objective of , the grassroots campaign that recruited Haight as a provaccine crusader. The program is testing the theory behind Brunsons research, that parents can be instrumental in molding how other parents think about vaccines. At seven pilot sites in western Washington two child-care centers, three preschools and two elementary schools 13 parent advocates are being trained and supported to start a conversation about vaccination that has historically been dominated by vocal naysayers. When youre following the status quo in this case, adhering to the CDCs recommended guidelines you tend not to get fired up and speak out.

Later this month, some of the parents will host a health fair at a bowling alley featuring yoga, talks about fire safety and a spin-the-wheel trivia game about vaccine-preventable diseases. This is about shifting a social norm and elevating the voice of the majority of parents who do immunize, says Ginny Heller, the immunization program manager at WithinReach, the Washington state nonprofit behind Immunity Community.

(MORE:)

Its a work in progress, with lots of cues and miscues. Emotions run high when parents believe others are examining their choices. One mother at Haights preschool threatened to withdraw her child; another said that hot topics such as vaccination and circumcision shouldnt be discussed at school. They feel theyre being judged, says Haight.

But preliminary data on Immunity Communitys effectiveness look promising: last year, one Montessori-preschool pilot site raised its immunization rate from 60% to 80%. The CDC is keeping tabs on the results and could bring it to other states as a potential national model, albeit one rooted at the local level. For people to be passionate and credible and persuasive about this, they have to be local community members, says Kris Sheedy of the CDCs immunization-services division. We know that birds of a feather flock together, so its a good thing to make vaccinating parents more visible.

[More from BGR: ]

This article was

The aid community believes that tens of thousands of people died needlessly because the international community was slow to respond to early signs of approaching hunger in East Africa in late 2010 and early 2011.

The toll was also exacerbated by extremist militants from al-Shabab who banned food aid deliveries to the areas of south-central Somalia that they controlled. Those same militants have also made the task of figuring out an accurate death toll extremely difficult.

A Western official briefed on the new report the most authoritative to date told AP that it says 260,000 people died, and that half the victims were 5 and under. Two other international officials briefed on the report confirmed that the toll was in the quarter-million range. All three insisted they not be identified because they were not authorized to share the report's contents before it is officially released.

The report is being made public Thursday by FEWSNET, a famine early warning system funded by the U.S. government's aid arm USAID, and by the Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit - Somalia, which is funded by the U.S. and Britain.

A previous estimate by the U.K. government said between 50,000 and 100,000 people died in the famine. The new report used research conducted by specialists experienced in estimating death tolls in emergencies and disasters. Those researchers relied on food and mortality data compiled by the Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit.

Because of the imprecise nature of the data available, the toll remains only an estimate.

When asked about the report, Somalia Health Minister Maryan Qasim Ahmed said she didn't want to comment until she read it because of questions she had about the accuracy of the figures.

Sikander Khan, the head of UNICEF in Somalia, also said he needed to look at the report's methodology before commenting specifically. But he said generally that the response to the famine was problematic because it depended on political dynamics. He said the international community needs to change the way it classifies famines.

"You lose children by the time people realize it's met the established definition of famine," he said.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Supreme Court case that challenges a law requiring anti-prostitution policies for HIV/AIDS programs seeking federal money has generated a split among nonprofit groups that counsel sex workers overseas.

The case involves a 2003 law that bars funding for groups that work on HIV/AIDS prevention but do not have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.

It has pitted two non-governmental organizations that operate programs overseas, backed by umbrella organizations representing others like them, against 46 organizations that have sided with the federal government in defending the law.

"The split is about whether you support the sex industry," Norma Ramos, executive director of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, one of the groups siding with the government.

"Prostitution is the end point of sex trafficking" and cannot be separated out from efforts to fight public health problems, including the spread of HIV/AIDS, she said.

The organizations challenging the provision on First Amendment grounds do not want to take a stand on prostitution. They say the law interferes with their work providing advice and counseling to prostitutes about the risks of HIV infection.

The court on April 22 will consider whether the requirement, which has not been enforced since a 2006 injunction, is valid under the U.S. Constitution.

The 2003 law outlined a plan to fight the spread of the HIV virus that causes AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, part of which would involve providing funding for non-governmental organizations. Congress so far has provided $63 billion. Some entities that receive funding, including the World Health Organization, were exempted from the provision.

The Alliance for Open Society International and Pathfinder International - NGOs that receive funding for overseas HIV/AIDS prevention - sued in 2005, citing the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

The two groups have since been joined in the litigation by the Global Health Council and InterAction, two sizable alliances of NGOs that work in developing countries. InterAction has almost 200 member organizations that, between them, receive more than $1 billion a year in funding from the U.S. government, according to court papers.

But when the justices review the court papers, they will see that Ramos' group and 45 others have filed a brief in support of the government. Many of the groups focus on women's rights, especially in the context of prostitution, violence and sex trafficking.

DIFFERENT VIEWS

In response to their criticism, Punima Mane, the president and CEO of Pathfinder, said it would be a "gross misinterpretation" to suggest her group was somehow supportive of the sex industry or sex trafficking.

She said Pathfinder would likely not have a problem if the policy related only to sex trafficking. The reference to prostitution raises obstacles because of the work the organization does with sex workers, she said. Pathfinder runs programs that, among other things, have taught sex workers how to avoid HIV infections.

"We would not want to condemn the groups we work with and for," Mane said. Such a move would threaten her organization's ability to provide "life-saving health services" to a vulnerable population, she added.

The main United Nations body that coordinates anti-HIV/AIDS action, known as the UNAIDS Secretariat, supports the groups challenging the law. It has filed a brief echoing Mane's sentiments, noting that programs "work best when they involve, and do not stigmatize, the affected populations."

Outside the courtroom, a group representing sex workers started a petition to reverse the policy, saying it has "resulted in the reduction or complete elimination of HIV prevention and treatment services for sex workers in numerous countries."

The U.S. government "is preventing the delivery of successful health programs and important resources to sex workers worldwide," according the petition, which has been endorsed by around 150 nonprofit groups including some representing sex workers.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

So far, Pathfinder and its allies have had success in pursuing the argument that the law violates the First Amendment.

A federal judge ruled in 2006 that under First Amendment precedents, the law was infringing on private speech because it compelled the groups to accept the government's policy position on prostitution. The restriction applies across all programs an NGO operates, even those not funded by the federal government.

The judge imposed a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the provision, which remains in effect.

The George W. Bush administration tried to circumvent the issue by issuing guidelines, updated by the Obama administration in 2010, that allow groups to set up affiliates that are not bound by the anti-prostitution policy.

But in July 2011, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the injunction.

In court papers, the Obama administration maintained there was no First Amendment violation because groups "have been given a voluntary choice" of whether to participate in the program.

"Offering private entities that type of choice does not violate the First Amendment," Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote. He said Congress has "wide latitude to attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds."

Justice Elena Kagan is recused, most likely due to her previous role as solicitor general, meaning only eight justices will hear the case.

The case is U.S. AID v. Alliance for Open Society International, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-10.

For petitioners: Donald Verrilli, solicitor general, Department of Justice.

For respondents: David Bowker, WilmerHale.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Doina Chiacu)

[More from BGR: ]

HTC, LG, and Samsung Join Power Matters Alliance; AT&T To Embed PMA into Smartphones by 2014

[More from BGR: ]

Austin, Texas and Dallas, Texas (April 18, 2013) Five months after AT&T, Google and Starbucks announced their support for the Power Matters Alliance (PMA), the momentum behind the PMA continues in full force. HTC, LG and Samsung, global leaders in consumer electronics, have joined the PMA, marking a tenfold increase in membership in the past five months. These latest additions to the PMA roll call are indicative of the quality as well as the quantity of The PMA membership surge.

PMA is today the standard of choice for wireless charging in public places in The US. Over 1,500 charging spots have been deployed across a growing number of Starbucks coffee shops, airports and at iconic places like Madison Square Garden and The Garden State Plaza Mall. It was recently announced that Powerkiss, a European leader in wireless charging, is dropping the Qi standard in favor of PMA installations at their over 1,000 locations across European airports and train stations soon to include McDonalds restaurants in Europe too.

In recent months PMA has also enjoyed broad support on the device-side, with Blackberry, NEC, Texas Instruments, IDT, NXP, ZTE, Kyocera and accessory makers Incipio, Sketch and Otterbox all joining its ranks. This trend is expected to continue and intensify, following AT&Ts announcement that they plan to have PMA-wireless charging integrated into their smartphone portfolio by 2014:

We want to welcome HTC, LG and Samsung to the PMA, said Jeff Howard, Vice President, Mobile Devices and Accessories at AT&T, and a PMA Board member. AT&T fully supports the concept of an industry standard for wireless power. In an effort to move toward making this a reality for consumers worldwide and in direct support for the public ecosystem roll out led by Powermat, we have asked our device suppliers to integrate PMA-certified wireless charging solutions by 2014. In the meantime, we are working with them to deploy PMA-certified handsets and accessories as quickly as possible.

This article was

Well, meteors not associated with an annual shower are certainly tough to predict. But there are some patterns that skywatchers can keep in mind to maximize their chances of spotting a fireball (which technically is any meteor that shines more brightly thanin the sky).

For example, springtime is "fireball season," when the number of bright meteor sightings increases by as much as 30 percent, NASA experts say. And the three-day stretch from Tuesday (April 23) to Thursday (April 25) is perhaps the best time to watch for the next prospective fireball event, which might possibly even lead to the fall of a meteorite. []

Over the years, some real dazzlers have been seen during this time frame. And in at least two cases, the orbits of thewere virtually identical, suggesting Earth might hit more such space rocks when it passes through this part of its orbit.

A river of rubble?

Is there perhaps a "river of rubble" orbiting the sun that is populated by rather large meteoroids?

Unlike most of the annual meteor showers that are composed chiefly of dust and sand-sized particles such as , which peaked overnight Sunday (April 21) this supposed fireball stream might be made up of objects that are considerably larger, perhaps originating in the main asteroid belt betweenand Jupiter or perhaps being shed by the nucleus of a long-dormant comet.

The circumstantial evidence for such a meteor stream lies with two brilliant fireballs that appeared during the 1960s.

One of these fireballs cast shadows over northern New Jersey on April 23, 1962. The other was seen by thousands of people over England, Wales and Northern Ireland on April 25, 1969 and also dropped a 0.6-pound (0.27 kilograms) meteorite in the town of Sprucefield, Northern Ireland.

After enough ground observations were gathered, orbits for both objects were computed. Remarkably, the two turned out to be very similar.

Something to Crow about

Both the New Jersey and United Kingdom meteors seemed to emanate from a spot in the sky near theof Corvus (the Crow).

Corvus is a rather striking star pattern situated low in the southeast sky around 9 p.m. local daylight time a little four-sided figure of fairly bright stars, like a triangle whose top has been removed by a slanting cut.

By around midnight it appears almost due south, and by the first light of dawn its disappearing beyond the southwest horizon. So any brilliant fireballs traveling on a general south-to-north trajectory might be related to this supposed fireball stream, especially if they seem to come from the direction of Corvus.

Here are three other possible candidate "Crow" meteors, all of which blazed up on the calendar date of April 25:

April 25, 1966:This brilliant exploding meteor passed northward over New Jersey and eastern New York into Canada along a flat trajectory. Observations were analyzed by both U.S. and Canadian experts, who determined that the end point of the meteor's visible path was at an altitude of around 9 miles (15 kilometers) near Huntingdon, Quebec. Canadian astronomers B.A. McIntosh and J.A.V. Douglas noted, "The anticlimax of so spectacular an event is surely the failure to recover meteorites ... Much of the possible fall area is either sparsely populated or unfavorable terrain for recovery." They suggest that part of the meteoritic mass may have come down in the rugged Adirondack Mountains, along the trajectory but before the end point.

April 25, 1971:A man named James A. Lewis reported that he and his wife heard a "thunder-like" sound in north-Central Wisconsin. "I thought it was lightning," Lewis wrote, "until I looked up and saw the fireball-like object hurtling northerly through the clouds. It seemed to break up about 30 degrees above the northern horizon." (As reported in , Vol. LXXX, No. 7, August-September 1971).

April 25, 2005:A fireball was seen as far north as Portland, Maine and as far south as Long Island. A Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman said that a number of witnesses thought the meteor was a plane crashing in Connecticut, the Associated Press reported at the time.

Prospects for 2013

It should be stressed that this possible fireball stream bears no relation to the annual performance of the Lyrid meteor shower. []

If you do plan on watching thefor any prospective fireball activity this year, keep in mind that you're going to have stiff competition from a very bright moon which, unfortunately, turns full on April 25.

The moons brilliant light will squelch the light of all but the brightest stars, but if youre lucky enough to witness a fireball suddenly bursting forth, it should easily be seen in spite of the moonlight.

Also keep in mind that any potential fireball sightings are likely to be very few and very far between. This plus that bright moon might sound discouraging, but considering what some have been lucky to see in the past around this time of year, it still just might be worthwhile to spend a little time under the stars on the nights of April 23, 24 and 25.

You never know.

Editor's note:If you snap a great photo dazzling fireball thatyou'd like to share for a possible story or image gallery, send photos, comments and your name and location to managing editor Tariq Malik at.

Joe Rao serves as an instructor and guest lecturer at New York's Hayden Planetarium. He writes about astronomy for TheNew York Times and other publications, and he is also an on-camera meteorologist for News 12 Westchester, New York. Follow us,or. Originally published on.