Eric Dubay's Long Haul Argument for Flat Earth applied to Antarctica

I've been reading Dubay off and on-- getting discouraged and excited off and on--- going around in circles-- during the past year. I wanted to zero in on Antarctica's perimeter because I thought it would be easier than the non-stop flight argument. It hasn't been that way. I went back to look at Dubay-- who banned me from his forum inexplicably after one post-- to review Captain Cook and his 3 journeys around the bottom of the world that took 60,000 miles. Dubay points to Cook and makes a good case-- except for the fact that its not clear to me that the 60.000 miles was one trip or 3, because Cooke make 3 trips. So 60,000/3 = 20,000 which is order of magnitide consistent with a globe, not flat earth. Debay doesn't drill down on Cooke's journey's enough for me to confirm a 60,000 mile perimeter. Nonetheless, I followed more Dubay today and found this.

This is interesting. It's not Antarctica but I found, over the past year, that the argument dealing with these commercial airliners in the southern hemisphere were interesting. I didn't end up drilling down on the case studies because I didn't think I could get into arial navigation systems and how they determine how far planes fly. In the case of Eric Dubay's Atlantian blog however, after looking deeper into his Captain Cooke arguments, I found a few graphic panels that make interesting points relevent to Antarctica. The flight path seen above makes more sense on a flat earth.

So... the key question for me is-- do flight paths look the same in Antarctica? IN other words... do flight paths in Antarctica make more sense on a flat earth than a globe? That's what occurred to me. I've been looking a flights inside Antarctica as well as AROUND the perimeter of Antarctica. I think Eric Dubay has a lot of good points-- his presentation style makes me cringe however. His dry speaking voice, for one thing, irks me. I can't take it. His blog makes many good points, but he doesn't seem to understand how to emphasize the MOST important things over the lesser things. Still-- he's like a raw data base. What they say about him is likely true. He's an accumulator and attention hog rather than an original thinker. However, he's accumulated stuff in a way that is a bit easer to search than raw google searches.