Yeah, sure, like the Kuwaiti Incubators, the Iraqui WMDs, the Tonkin Gulf incident.
No, not like those, in fact. The first two were just propaganda inventions, they never happened and the dispute at the time, if any, was if they did happen at all (The Gulf incident was two attacks, one of which did happen and one of which didn't, but I think the 2nd attack is more "jumping at shadows in the fog of war" then just a pure invention).
Scott admits Bucha happened, that lots of people were murdered and gunned down, he doesn't contest that in the least. What he claims is that it wasn't Russia who did it. Coming to his defense with "actually, all those pictures are lies, nothing happened at all" doesn't actually defend him, and given your list of examples is just another case of Russiaboos scrambling to go "but what about the west?" (because of course there's plenty of other infamous wartime lies you could have picked, but you only seized on the ones told by the US).
It's also another case where you lot can not keep your story straight, because you're not looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion, you're starting from the conclusion and looking to backfill it with evidence, hence why you and Scott have a radically different opinion of what happened in Bucha but identical conclusions, namely that Russia Did Nothing Wrong.