A new Russian MH17 report, published by Novaya Gazeta, allegedly leaked from Russian military experts preparing evidence for Dutch investigators, states that MH17 was hit by a Buk and analyses the damage pattern in an attempt to disprove the Snizhne launch site theory and support the Zaroshchenske launch site theory. Russian aviation expert Vadim Lukashevich, who has previously debunked Russian MH17-related allegations, has spotted an inconsistency in the report.

To understand Lukashevich’s findings, you first need to understand the gist of the leaked report.

First, the report estimates the MH17 damage pattern.

Then the report finds likely impact lines.

By converging these lines, the report finds the rocket’s explosion point — slightly above and to the left of the cockpit:

Then a perfectly straight line is drawn from the Snizhne launch site to the explosion point, and shrapnel flying perpendicular to the rocket’s trajectory is juxtaposed on the damage pattern image, which causes a mismatch.

According to the report, shrapnel flying perpendicularly to the rocket’s (perfectly straight) trajectory could not have cause the damage to MH17’s left engine, wing and tail.

The report further says the impact damage analysis yields a possible launch area covering the Zaroschenske launch site.

However, the report has no damage analysis for a rocket coming from Zaroschenske!

Lukashevich did just that, using the same method the report uses to disprove the Snizhne launch site.

By drawing a straight line from Zaroschenske to explosion point at the angles given in the report, and then juxtaposing a shrapnel cloud perpendicular to the rockets trajectory he shows that, according to the report’s method, the damage pattern does not match the Zaroshchenske launch site either.

Specifically, the shrapnel wouldn’t damage the cockpit but would significantly damage the upper part of the left wing, which is definitely not the damage parretn suggested by the report.

This means that either the Buk missile was not launched from Zaroshchenske either or the report’s method is inconsistent and does not disprove the Snizhne launch site theory.

Lack of damage analysis for the Zaroschenske launch could mean the report’s authors were trying to obfuscate this fact.

Lukashevich questions the report’s assumption of a perfectly straight rocket trajectory and this particular type of cloud. However, this mismatch is found if the report’s assumptions are taken for granted and the same analysis method is applied to the Zaroshchenske launch site (which the report’s authors had to do, but didn’t).