http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ffc/?n=balloon2004
as for a normal balloon, a handy pair of binoculars will do the trick.
The balloons are likely mistaken for stars or satellites. They are just a dim little dot in the night sky. They're probably rarely lit up at all.
No... but he has pictures... inb4 Death Star
At point do you consider people to have told the truth? If you want to play that game, then Rowbotham lied about his experiment.
I consider people to have told the truth when I can verify the results for my own self.
I have verified Rowbotham's claims. Ergo, I know that he was telling the truth.
Fine. He didn't do it exactly like Rowbotham. But you do need to explain how he got his results.
Well, as I recall, one of the concave-earther's main experiments was putting pieces of wood together and comparing it to the horizon:
Lining up pieces of wood are not exactly guaranteed to be as straight as a ray of light.
Nonetheless, Rowbotham's Bedford Canal Experiment does not discount the possibility of concavity. Looking across a canal and seeing bodies beyond RET tolerances only discounts the possibility of convexity. It's possible that the Bedford Canal is slightly concave. The bodies in the experiment would still be seen in the same manner on a concave earth. It's not a Flat Earth experiment. It's a Earth Not a Globe experiment.
Rowbotham provides a Flat Earth model to explain his observations. There might be a concave earth model which also explains the observations. Remember, the book is called Earth Not a Globe, not The Earth is Flat.
Nope. If anything, this should show you how inconclusive the results are! One person got one thing (never explained in FET), one got another (never explained in RET).
It does not come as a surprise that some people would attempt to rebut Rowbotham's work with hoaxed experiments. As we've seen on these forums, RE'ers will go to great lengths to keep their childhood beliefs and fantasies alive.