At first thought, I didn't think it matters if we geolocated the video.
But when you think about it, it makes it much harder to say the video was a fake. The fakers would need to have had a video of this area and quickly photoshopped something that is consistent with all the other video evidence, most of which would come out AFTER the video was faked.
A committed faker could go to the spot after the crash, film it and add a few bright pixels + some explosion sound. All videos show merely a small bright spot, not much rendering and detail required. There's a low chance of multiple videos (in decent quality) showing that precise moment, all other videos so far show just a fireball hitting the ground. The trajectory of the jet was known pretty quickly.
Unlikely, but definitely not impossible.
A crappy, easily proven fake is that easy. But to do it right, there are tons of things that need to line up, some things that may come up in videos AFTER you make the fake, either requiring coincidence or a bigger conspiracy theory.
For one, they have to be in a location and angle that lines up with where the 737 flew and lost contact. The geolocation jives with what we know (this doesn't 100% prove the video but if it didn't line up that would instantly disprove it)
I'd have to look at the video again, but I recall there being small, low res lights and flashes, but you can time between any flashes (or lack of flashes.) You should be able to roughly line it up with other videos. Again, doesn't 100% prove but anything to the contrary would disprove
The rough launch location and orientation of the missile can be very broadly estimated. If that lines up with anything the US releases, it doesn't 100% prove, but it would suggest the video was faked by the US, the US faked the launch locations based off this video, or coincidence. And again, if the 2 don't line up then it's fake. And any future video would have to have either missile match this video
I could go on, but you can see how all the evidence strengthens each other. You don't have 20 different things pointing to different conclusions, you have many pieces all fitting together. You get to the point where you can completely throw out anything the US says and the rest of the evidence continues to stand on its own.
To the contrary you have Iran saying it was a technical fault (in record time,) super duper vague anonymous "intelligence sources" saying they *think* it was a technical fault with official followup to the contrary, a very quickly redacted statement from the Ukrainian embassy saying they *think* it's a technical fault, and not much else...