Meh. 2 AU is negligible relative to the distances we are talking about in discerning the size of the object. You did not note those distances. You could make the argument that parallax partially explains the observed position of the stars, but this is such a simple argument against the findings that I must assume that it is incorrect. Likewise, any number of observations of the stars in question should be available to astronomers either before or after the eclipse. I do not have access to these observations, and I do not expect you to have access to them either. However, what I won't assume is that in my ignorance, the explanation for the observation is false due to "common sense". You also did not note the countless later experiments and observations that continue to show gravitational lensing. Your imagination is useful when it is followed by education, however common sense is worthless when we're talking about observations on scales that you can not ever experience.
Astronomy topics can be very difficult to understand if you, like me, are entirely uneducated in the field. I invite you to read through Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial, thoroughly. The only thing I find compelling about your argument is that you don't seem to understand what you are arguing.
You might also find wikipedia's article on tests of GR useful
Edited by JMJones0424, 18 March 2017 - 11:12 PM.