>>46768
>is it known the videos are authentic and come from this conflict?
This is hard to say. The guys (well at least one guy) on /polru/ at least post source for the video, usually a twitter tweety tweet. The accounts frequently belong to journalists. What the liveuamap provides is similar, and lots of overlap to both (most likely the polru guy also uses liveuamap). It is good because the videos arrive in more or less chronological order, at least it can be known that videos appeared on which day (and supposedly presenting events that happened on that day).
But back to the mentioned journos. Like this one here: >>46740 that video about the destroyed column in Bucha was posted by one on his twitter. He has other footage there, photos too. What I noticed tries to put a geolocation coordinate to the footage, trying to find the location the event took place.
Some footage, must be identifiable with the help notable buildings for example, or other object around, billboards or whatever. But who will google streetlook the whole Ukraine?
What appears on imageboards in general, and in other social media too, is useless. Or what we post here is useless. Even what I repost - although I try to add timestamp and descriptive title into the filename which I took from the video I found (on polru typically, next to the tweet link he quotes what's written in the tweet with the video) - is essentially useless.
Things can be faked. But then - especially if there is no source where it appeared - even the fake can be faked. For example in that video, how can we know that really someone faked a footage from 2014 Donbas, and tried to make it look like it's a fresh video from this conflict? What if someone faked it, to claim that someone tried to fake it in order to spread misinformation about the authenticity of the appearing videos in general. Fake news about fake news. To generate doubt. Muddling the picture as much as it can get.
We have a saying: "man arrived from afar can say what he wants".