The Bishop Experiment:
1) There are
no witnesses, no repeated measurements, just a fairytale from Tom Bishop.
2) The
observers hight is lower than the
waves. "Waves" are often put on the table as alternate explanation for claims of other RE arguments. But not for his own experiment. At several threads Tom explained "waves" hiding objects including the sun and "the sinking ship", which cannot be restored in turbulent weather, so why would the beach be not obscured.
Monterey Bay has a wide opening to the Pacific Ocean: There are almost anytime "waves", the swell from the ocean, and would this be a well known surf spot, if wave hight nearly never exceeds 40 inches?
3) The
mere distance: I highly doubt, that even without refraction, curvature etc. you can see such crisp details, Tom is presenting in his fairytale. The distance comes near "nominal range" for very good viewing conditions.
This never could be
... The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.
4) The
Lighthouse: There's a lighthouse near the beach. Why is there no repetition of the experiment at night? This lighthouse would be a perfect target, as it is clearly identifiable by the "characteristics" of it's light, the repetition of it's "blinks". Ok, it's nominal range is a bit to small, but with very good conditions, it might be visible over that distance sometimes.
Why are there no rumors in this area, that you could sometimes in clear nights see this lighthouse from lovers point?