The Snizhne scenario has even more problems. Placing the detonation here you can't explain the damage to the captain's side of the cockpit:

Since in the damage analysis done so far, the Snizhne scenario has not shown ANY problems, but the Zaroshens'kye approach is increasingly unlikely, you must be either joking or not paying attention.

In my analysis of the angle of caused damage on the top of the plane, is good but still thin evidence for several variables. In total there are 6 variables to proof, most likely with 4 or 5 proven variables we could make a solid case with multiple 2D vectormodels (we need 3 of them:1. top, we have, 2. front and 3. side) or 1 3D model.

To describe an exact position in a 3D area, you need to determine the X, Y and Z values.

The angles of the missile itself:

Xa: angle of being tiled around its longitudinal axes, as the warhead is round, this variable is irrelevant

Ya: angle of being tiled around its latitudinal axes, as the warhead measures 50-60cm in height, relevant

Za: angle compared to planedirection, the exact coarse of the missile (at this moment set at 314 degrees, but not yet proven), relevant

The position of the missile itself compared to the plane:

Xp, Yp and Zp all of them relevant and all of them unknown (unproven)

Different variables are linked to eachother and can be used to proof a variable but only if a the used variable is proven.

My analysis of 31,6 degrees should be relevant for the variables Ya, Xp, Yp and Zp.

The damage as i have used in my analyses, is the best damage to analyse. That kind of damage can only be caused when the angle between fragment and hit surface/skin of the plane is small (less then 10-15 degrees). A hole in surface/skin can be caused with much bigger angles then 10-15 degrees and therefor are less usefull to proof directions of fragments or the position of the missile.

The absence of damage is no proof for any of the variables: the absence of physical markings on a human body doesn't mean he/she died of natural causes.