"Dutch accident investigators say that evidence points to pro-Russian rebels as being responsible for shooting down MH-17, according to a source who has seen the report.
According to the source, the report says it was a Buk missile -- a Russian surface-to-air missile -- that was used, launched from a village in Russian rebel controlled territory. "
The key finding in the report was that the missile was fired from a specifically calculated area -- shown in red, in figure 62 -- that lay squarely within rebel-held territory. This by itself is quite damning for the pro-Russian side.
Whether the missile happened to have been fired from one of the 3 villages within that area, or from unincorporated territory is basically irrelevant to the report's main conclusions. And whether some CNN reporter, or his editor, may have fudged a bit on this basically irrelevant detail (shortening "fired from an area near village X" to "fired from village X"), even more so.
The report says it was a Buk missile -- a Russian surface-to-air missile -- that was used, launched from a village in Russian rebel controlled territory.
From which "evidence points to pro-Russian rebels as being responsible" is hardly an unreasonable extrapolation. It's a very reasonable extrapolation, in fact.
So I still don't see where the "outrageous lie" was.
Well, in the first place, this is a Soviet missile. And the main thing, report doesn't say about a party launched it. Provocative language and factual distortions are good friends for mass hysteria but not for objective investigation definitely.
According to the source, the report says it was a Buk missile -- a Russian surface-to-air missile -- that was used, launched from a village in Russian rebel controlled territory. "