To add on this, if the timetamp says 3:30 PM January 1, then all you need is the camera-person to testify that their camera is in their posession at the 3:30 PM on January 1, they recorded the video on scene, and that nobody else has touched/tampered with it. Then if the camera-person is unrelated to either party of a court case, then its very solid evidence, there’s no motive to fake it. More reliable than the camera-person’s own eyewitness testimony (since cameras don’t “misremember an event”)

But the credibility of the video would still be tied to the camera-person’s own credibility. If, for example, the camera-person was a conartist, then the validity of the video they supposedly recorded could be called into question.

And if the camera-person claims a whole separate event than what the camera recorded, then there might be forensics done on the camera to see if it was possibly hacked (as in, the hacker using “AI” to generate a fake sequence of events real-time then have the camera timestamp it to the internet).