bishop said:
I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles. See this map.
On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away. I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible. Even with the unaided naked eye one can see the beaches along the opposite coast.
i find this very curious. for starters, he claims that "
On a very clear and chilly day...I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing". anyone find this just a bit dubious? i live on the pacific coast too, and even as far south as i, you
do not go in the water on a chilly day without a wetsuit. nor would any responsible parent allow their children to. much less in monterrey bay. (i've been to that area many times in many seasons - by, in, under, and on the water.) bishop, do you want to modify your statement to say that the children were wearing wetsuits? furthermore, for maximum visibility there has to be a cold wind. and tom did say it was chilly. yet...there were sunbathers. (perhaps also wearing wetsuits, or sweaters?) and people throwing frisbees.
quite perplexing. the conclusion that most logically fits the evidence here, is that bishop is lying.
furthermore, the naked eye cannot even come close to resolving people from 33 miles away. another lie. this can be proven mathematically. (i've read it years ago in training...it's easy enough to do - maybe the engineer or others can bust out the calculator.) and/or try it empirically. i have. (i am - or was - something of an expert in this field with lives depending on it.) secondly, while looking low along the surface of water (or ground), no amount of magnification will do it. that's because the conditions near the air/ground interface are very turbulent (with or without wind) with mixing temperature gradients, even under the best conditions. 33 miles is a fantastic amount of turbulence to look through, making it impossible to resolve anything but the largest objects no matter how much scope you have. (but get 30 fee higher and things quickly change.) especially in a pacific ocean bay, where cold ocean water and warmer waters mix, with guaranteed temperature gradients somewhere.
on top of that, if you've ever used binoculars to look down a beach (or across a bay), you notice a big problem: even with low surf, there is a lot of salt spray in the air. i regularly look and photograph across a 15 mile bay, and I can assure you there is no way, at near ocean level, you can resolve people, much less the difference between children and teenagers, or a frisbee and some other thrown object, from that distance.
unsurprisingly, bishop has provided zero original photographic evidence of his claims - we are suppose to take him just on his word alone, which is already worthless. (he did provide a photo he did not take, snapped from a much higher vantage point, where you can see dunes on distant hills of the (undefined) distance. dunes are not a beach. (i have been to the dunes of the monterrey bay area. they can be very large and high, and sure enough, aren't beaches.)
there is only one condition that would allow one to see people with the naked eye from 33 miles away: viewing from just beneath the boundary of a stable temperature inversion, creating a superior mirage. these are extremely rare in bishop's neck of the woods, and at any rate produce a wide variety of optical phenomenon. the specific kind required for his story is very rare. (extremely rare even on the northern great lakes, where conditions are far more favorable for superior mirages.) even so, bishops inconsistencies about children and chilly water, etc. pretty much put to rest any possibility of him telling the truth.
and last but not least, not even his telescope can resolve the difference between children and teenagers, or a frisbee and something else, at 33 miles (even in a vacuum with no visual interference or distortion).
his telescope has a resolving power of 1.03arc*sec. do the math.
bishop, how about providing us with original photographic evidence? (some lame excuse or rowbotham quotes.) i thought so. it's easier just to sit on your ass and make shit up.
edit: fixed telescope link