Well, I'm not sure how Bellingcat's new analysis could be falsified at all. It's really more like an investigation into the structure and whereabouts of Russia's 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, which is not really disputed anywhere. Perhaps it could be tested if the foundation, the social media supplied visual imagery, is reliable enough to make the link?
Here's an interesting attempt or counter-claim by "freelance" investigator and computer programmer
Sergey Mastepanov to discredit the base video evidence by showing some potential discrepancies and demonstrate how easily such evidence could be manipulated by anyone with modest means. Which considering the stakes is not something to dismiss out of hand or categorize as "unlikely".
MH17: The Buk videos are fake
MH17: Fake photo was used to falsely claim there was a Russian Buk in Ukraine
But I don't think Bellingcat has anything yet nearing a claim here. It seems more like a collection of data which only makes sense if earlier claims about the supplied visual evidence would have any substance to it. However some of Bellingcat's earlier claims regarding rocket trajectories, crater analysis , Error Level Analysis (ELA) and Photoshop metadata of JPG imagery have all been seriously challenged in the past and even ridiculed by notable experts in the field. How trustworthy could their other analysis then be, unless we can trace it ourselves back to the source in every detail?
And should visual evidence not be corroborated by other sources? Where are the interviews, anonymized witnesses, snitches and different lines of evidence
in this report, tying the soldiers to the MH-17 event? After naming all the soldiers involved, Bellingcat also claims: "There is no direct evidence that soldiers or officers of the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade were part of the crew of the Buk-M1 that likely downed MH17 on 17 July 2014".
In other words the topic title "we name the names" is
wrong as the report does not provide any direct evidence and forms therefore no substantial claim, at most additional circumstance and detail added to earlier claims.