Yes, there are flat areas, I mean, where I live there are mountains 60 miles away that I can see most days, where spherical curvature should have a majority of those mountains concealed.

Seeing mountains from great distances is a commonplace occurrence and doesn't really lend itself to these discussions. Case in point, 60 miles accounts for approximately 2100 feet of alleged curvature. So if your mountain is taller than 2100 feet (and assuming your relative elevations are similar) this makes perfect sense that you can see it from that distance "on the globe", and even greater probably. I remember I could see Mt. Shasta (~14,000 feet) on I5 at nearly 100 miles away on clear days which would only account for 6200 feet of alleged curvature.

I promise that I'm not being dismissive of the arguments... but that earlier video, his first question why the jet doesn't have the earth spinning away, the answer is that it remains relative, when you leave the surface, there's a spin velocity that's not lost, the acceleration east or west is relative to that spin.

I presume you're referencing the Owen Benjamin meltdown video. I simply shared that as a hiliarous/painful example of what virtually all of us once experienced. Nobody wants to be a "flat-earther"...even now. And that video is over 5 years old. We knew a whole lot less back in those days.

As to your point, I wholeheartedly disagree. There's no way the "atmosphere" is velcroed to the surface. Every fiber of my being and all the common sense I've accrued to date suggests otherwise. I bought into that argument for about 3 months because everybody else I talked to did too, despite my intuition telling me otherwise. Then one day, I was laying on the beach and watching the clouds moving east to west (against the alleged rotation) at a leisurely pace of 1-2 MPH and watched the birds and the bees effortlessly flying in that same westerly direction as well and I could no longer maintain that absurd idea.

And then I thought about the NY to SF and SF to NY flight times and, like I had known all along but been in deep brainwashed denial about, I knew it would literally be impossible to make the SF to NY flight at 500 MPH with a rotating ball beneath it moving at 800 MPH while the clouds, birds and bees effortlessly traveled in all 4 cardinal directions with the same amount of grace and pace.

And I'll save you the effort should you care to look up what the "experts" have to say on this point. The answer is "no", it's not the same as pouring a drink up in an airplane. This is yet another false equivalency they cabal uses to hold you in the matrix. Being inside the pressurized cabin of a closed-system is NOT THE SAME as the open-system of earth. In order to make each situation equivalent, you need to go sit on the wing of the plane and try to pour your drink. Simple.

I forget which, but it's noticeable in the difference in travel time going east-west vs west-east.

The differences are negligible and are entirely due to the prevailing jet streams that can enable the plane to pick up 100MPH when they gain enough altitude.

If you were on a spinning globe, you should be able to fly from NY to SF (~2000 miles) at 500 MPH average airspeed in about an hour and a half as every hour you're covering 1300 miles (+800 for the rotating globe). It's also worth noting that each leg of the trip uses virtually the same amount of fuel. So there's no difference between flying with the spin or against the spin. That makes zero sense of course. It should take ENORMOUSLY MORE power and fuel to push against the velcro'ed rotating atmosphere. Like exponentially more. And, oh yeah, jet airframes would disintegrate if they had to push against an 800 MPH force as they're only integrity rated to about 600 MPH.

None of it makes any sense if you simply stop and think about it. Just look at some clouds. They aren't moving at 802 MPH (800 MPH is a rough estimate of the average speed for the United States. If you live in Ecuador, make that 1037 MPH, +2 MPH for the cloud. You get the gist. Throw out all you've been taught and look up with the innocence of a child. It will all become abundantly clear to you if you do.

Also worth noting that I'm avoiding discussion on gravity, because that's a concept that is at best poorly understood and there's no model available to have a theory of gravity that works at all scales.

Gravity is, and always will be, an unprovable, unmeasurable THEORY. But it's the "Globe savior" for literally dozens of arguments. Nobody disagrees on the 9.8m/Sec^2 math. We suggest that the "force" making "what goes up must come down" is simply electrostatic attraction. And this is quite MEASURABLE and PROVABLE. The higher you rise above the ground, the more positively polarized the ions are. Such that the ground/water generate a tremendous downward pull with its negatively charged ions. This attraction is perfectly explains observable phenomena and can be measured, unlike gravity.

Now, entering into the speculative realms, it's been hypothesized that if we were in fact living in some sort of a "dome" (the waters above and waters below) than we could actually build a working model using two Gaussian plates, above and below, to explain the ionic polarization and electrostatic attraction perfectly. If there's no upper "lid", we can't explain the observed phenomena. Which leads me to believe the dome theory is likely correct.

There are several videos out there which appear to demonstrate some sort of a "force field" that can't be breached. The most famous is the "Go Fast Rocket" demonstration that some amateurs launched several years ago with a camera on it. It traveled over 73 miles up and then Poof, hit "something" that immediately stopped it in its tracks. The previous record was 72 miles. The owners said it did not run out of fuel. Things that make you go hmmmm, yes?

Anyway if there were a dome, naturally it wouldn't be equal heights form all points. It should be lower in areas like Australia, southern Chile, Argentina, etc. and higher as you approach the north pole (on the flat earth model). I've heard some people suggest the max height is 86 miles but I don't know how that person came to that conclusion so it's just pure speculation at this point.

Anyway, here's the video of the GoFast Rocket.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEIG9NiTTwk

What do you think happened?