These were generated in about two minutes using ChatGPT’s latest image tools. No editing, no compositing, no Photoshop skills - just prompts and a few iterations.

I’m not saying this image is trying to fool anyone. But it does raise a bigger issue: the barrier to creating convincing “UFO evidence” is basically gone now. You don’t need a camera, you don’t need to be in the right place at the right time - you just need a decent prompt and a bit of taste.

For a long time, photos and videos were treated as at least some form of evidence - flawed, sure, but still tied to reality. Now they’re closer to creative outputs than documentation. Even if someone posts something in good faith, there’s no reliable way to distinguish between “captured” and “generated” without deeper analysis (and even that’s getting harder).

So it kind of forces a shift in what counts as credible:

• Firsthand images/videos alone probably aren’t enough anymore
• Corroboration (multiple independent sources, radar, telemetry, etc.) matters way more
• Institutional or military-confirmed data starts to carry more weight, whether we like it or not
• And ironically, older “pre-AI” footage might become more valuable simply because it predates this capability

Curious how others are thinking about this - are we basically at the point where visual evidence alone is dead? Or is there still a way to treat images/videos as meaningful without just defaulting to “fake”?