I used trigonometry which is pretty close given the size of the earth. See calculations attached. In reality the hypotenuse would be less than 1 mile because of the arc.

Well, whatever you did, it's wrong.  You don't have a consistent 1.2 foot drop per mile, because it's a curve, and therefore it drops exponentially.  Just depict 1.2 feet per mile on a sheet of graph paper.  You get a straight line with a downward slope.  There are at least a half dozen earth curvature calculators online where you can check the actual math.  But the rule of thumb that is very accurate up to over 100 miles is 8 inches per miles squared, so you square the miles and then multiply that by 8 inches.  You can use trigonometry to get the actual result (and the online calculators use that), but I've seen charts where the simple rule is off only by a foot or so after 100 miles.

One of the worst parts about flat earth is so much of it has protestant garbage attached to it.

You just said the quiet part out loud. Think about it.

One of the worst parts about flat earth is so much of it has protestant garbage attached to it. 

That is completely irrelevant. Any truth with humans involved, INCLUDING THE CATHOLIC FAITH, has hundreds of spin-off errors which are wrong, even if they "originated" in the truth.

Truth is one, error is many.

Do we write off the Catholic Faith because the Arians took that Faith and added an error to it? OF COURSE NOT.

Sadly, humans have a LITERALLY INFINITE capacity for getting things wrong, in an INFINITE number of ways. The darkening of our intellect -- our excellence at getting things wrong -- was one of the Wounds of Original Sin.

Welcome to the Human Race.

I personally found several Protestant preachers/groups to be the best resources in current year for issues like Evolution, Young Earth, Creationism, dinosaurs, the Y chromosome proving young earth, and many other issues. Sure, I ignore when they throw in a Protestant bit -- but they've spent years of study and developed quite a body of apologetics for certain natural truths.

I agree.  There's actually a dearth of this kind of thing in Catholic circles and when I started looking into young earth, geocentrism, etc., it took me forever to stumble upon the Kolbe Center.  To their credit, Prots have taken the time to read into their King James, take it literally, and then looked to see if the natural world lines up with it.  I can only surmise it's because the average pew-sitting Catholic is usually concerned with raising a family and getting to Mass on Sunday and that seems to be where it stops.  

Very few globe advocates can get past Step 1.

I got to step 3.5, considering thats as far as I could go based on contradictions and insufficiently strong evidence on both sides, but later went back to a very high level of confidence that the earth is a globe based on evidence I can see in person and reason out myself.

Evidence like 1) observing the evening sunlight shining up from below cloud level, illuminating the underside of clouds and, casting shadows of the clouds and land features upward.

2) observing the morning sunlight do the same as far as watching it transition from below to above cloud level (of which I have a video, unfortunately it is likely poor quality, but I haven't checked it yet).

3) yesterday I saw light rays or rather the shadows blocking the rays that lit up the perfectly clear sky in the evening, when the sun was BELOW the horizon. Must have been from mountains or sky scrapers.

4) I have long ago watched a thin sliver of the moon grow and shrink over a few minutes( I'm guesstimating a half hour or less)  as the shadow of the earth changed based on the changing altitude of the horizon.

5) if the sun just got farther away at night and was otherwise only a few hundred miles above the ground, it would look biggest at mid day, and tiny at morning and evening, but it always looks the same, occasionally even bigger at sunrise and set.

6) in addition to number 5, the sunlight should not appear and disappear so quickly if the sun is just moving far away over flat ground, but night and day transitions are very fast as if the sun is going to the other side of a globe.

7) I have noticed a pattern that I see most satellites in the late evening, or very early morning. Otherwise they disappear in the shadow of the earth somewhere overhead most other times of the night.

I got to step 3.5, considering thats as far as I could go based on contradictions and insufficiently strong evidence on both sides, but later went back to a very high level of confidence that the earth is a globe based on evidence I can see in person and reason out myself.

Evidence like 1) observing the evening sunlight shining up from below cloud level, illuminating the underside of clouds and, casting shadows of the clouds and land features upward.

2) observing the morning sunlight do the same as far as watching it transition from below to above cloud level (of which I have a video, unfortunately it is likely poor quality, but I haven't checked it yet).

3) yesterday I saw light rays or rather the shadows blocking the rays that lit up the perfectly clear sky in the evening, when the sun was BELOW the horizon. Must have been from mountains or sky scrapers.

4) I have long ago watched a thin sliver of the moon grow and shrink over a few minutes( I'm guesstimating a half hour or less)  as the shadow of the earth changed based on the changing altitude of the horizon.

5) if the sun just got farther away at night and was otherwise only a few hundred miles above the ground, it would look biggest at mid day, and tiny at morning and evening, but it always looks the same, occasionally even bigger at sunrise and set.

6) in addition to number 5, the sunlight should not appear and disappear so quickly if the sun is just moving far away over flat ground, but night and day transitions are very fast as if the sun is going to the other side of a globe.

7) I have noticed a pattern that I see most satellites in the late evening, or very early morning. Otherwise they disappear in the shadow of the earth somewhere overhead most other times of the night.

I have a problem with #4. Are you suggesting that the phases of the moon are caused by the Earth’s shadow? If so, that is not correct. 

You are very right to use your own two eyes, do your own experiments, and observe the movements of the Sun and Moon.

All those "objections" have an answer in Flat Earth. Just so you know. You need to investigate further. Your objections are hardly clear-cut evidence, but meanwhile many FE arguments totally disprove the Globe. Like the subject of this very thread. So what's the deal? Is the earth actually 1 million miles in diameter or something? Where is all the hidden land?
And wouldn't that make gravity (according to officially accepted gravity equations) 10 or 100X stronger than it actually is?

I'm pretty sure I don't weigh 1,000 or 2,000 pounds.

One of your FE proofs/explanations clearly rules in favor of globe, which further set me off of FE. It caused me to recognize some error humans commonly fall into when putting too much trust into their own judgments. I put sedes in the same category, and a lot of other beliefs belong there too. I'm sure I've been in that category on many issues. We dumb things down according to our own personal understanding of things, pass judgment, and call ourselves and anyone who agrees right as if we can't err. If I had the time and skills to do it, I'd make videos to counter the FE ones, since people like visual aides.

The guy wouldn't choose any other spot to film than what can bee seen by the camera. That would be really stupid. He probably chose a target he could see at the distance he wanted, and set the camera there, and drove out in an attempt to find that spot, or something like that.