How on earth is that in any way credible? Most of the article is predicate on exacting details from a supposed GRU report that is never shown and doesn't seem t

How on earth is that in any way credible? Most of the article is predicate on exacting details from a supposed GRU report that is never shown and doesn't seem to exist anywhere else aside from regurgitation from whatdoesitmean.com. If he was travelling to the Israeli Consulate, he should have turned west at Santa Monica / Highland and stayed there most of the way. Instead he was traveling perpendicular by going south on Highland (spotted on the dashcam at Santa Monica / Highland and crashed south of Melrose / Highland). Roadwise, that takes him further away from the consulate, not closer. Even as an alternate route, he should have taken Sunset, which still would have meant going north or west from that point instead of south. I also like how the article is so resolute on how there is no impact damage and how it had to have been hit by a drone / missile when the video and eyewitnesses say otherwise. I liked his work and am sad that he is gone, but how is a drone strike more plausible than him possibly falling off the wagon and drunkenly crashing his car, which by his own admission, he's done before?