There you go with an assumption though, when you're having a go at others for the same thing. "It had to be" is not proof that that is the case. Your last "direct camera hit" implies downwards refraction if we take it as an efficient measurement. But as @Mick West and others have said, how is this an accurate measurement? According to your approximate measurements, it precisely matches only the globe. If a carpenter was 1 centimetre out in the middle and 5 out at the end you'd question their methods no?