Yeah, fair. My life remains busy, I don't really have the time, but I did say I would, didn't I?
Looking at the calc, I can see some issues that would lead to a distortion in size. Angular size is already one of our more tenuous, finnicky methods, and even small issues- like non-straight scaling lines- can lead to considerable changes in determined distance (and thus, size). The image determining distance to the dome as it falls, for example, seems to fall in this trap. There's other anomalies, such as the speed Charlie was supposedly falling at.
In pointing these small things out, I don't aim to provide them as central reasons to discredit this calc, but rather to say that this does seem like a situation where the math may have gone astray. As it stands, I'd agree with striking this down, though a replacement calc that yields more technically possible results would be preferred (not sure if someone did that, normally these discussions are prompted by such a replacement having already been made). Failing that, we need to look for what stats change and who scales to what.