#FactCheck-AI-Generated Video Falsely Claims Snake Was Spotted on Aircraft Wing During Flight
Executive Summary
A video showing a snake crawling on the wing of an aircraft during a flight is being widely circulated on social media. The video is being shared with the claim that the sighting of a snake on the aircraft wing caused panic among passengers and crew members during the flight. Several users are sharing the video as a genuine incident. CyberPeace Research Wing ’s research found the viral claim to be misleading. The research revealed that the video does not show a real incident and was created using artificial intelligence (AI).
Claim:
A Facebook user shared the viral video on July 26, 2026, claiming that a snake was spotted on an aircraft during a flight, causing panic. The post stated, “Snake spotted on aircraft during flight, video goes viral!”
The link to the post, archive link and screenshot are provided below:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2845827375780035
Factcheck
To verify the authenticity of the viral video, the Desk analysed several key frames from the footage and conducted a reverse image search.
However, no credible news report, official information, or reliable source was found linking the video to any real incident involving a snake on an aircraft during a flight.
Upon closely examining the video, the Desk suspected that it may have been generated using AI. To verify this, the video was analysed using the AI detection tool HIVE Moderation. The tool’s analysis also indicated that the video was likely AI-generated, suggesting that it does not depict an actual incident.
As part of further verification, the key frames of the video were also examined using another AI detection tool, Sightengine. The tool’s analysis indicated a 99 per cent probability that the visuals were AI-generated.
Conclusion:
The research established that the viral video does not show a real incident of a snake crawling on an aircraft wing during a flight. The video was created using artificial intelligence (AI) and is being circulated on social media with a misleading claim.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
As tensions between the United States and Iran continue to escalate in West Asia, a video showing a massive fire engulfing an industrial facility is being widely circulated on social media. Several users claim that the footage shows the aftermath of a recent U.S. strike on Iran. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the claim to be false. Our research revealed that the viral video is not related to the current U.S.-Iran conflict. It actually shows a 2022 attack on Saudi Arabia's Aramco petroleum distribution facility in Jeddah, carried out by Yemen's Houthi rebels.
Claim
An X user shared the viral video on July 16, 2026, claiming that it shows a recent American attack on Iran. https://x.com/SonOfBharat7/status/2077823734069826027 , https://perma.cc/RPA9-YZ3C
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research, we found that the same video had been uploaded by Reuters on March 26, 2022. According to Reuters, Yemen's Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for attacks on Saudi Arabia's energy facilities. Reuters reported that the Saudi-led coalition confirmed an attack on Saudi Aramco's petroleum products distribution station in Jeddah, where two storage tanks caught fire. The incident caused significant damage but no casualties were reported. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CAxj5tgZ_w
For further verification, we found another video of the same incident uploaded by the Qatar Day Facebook page on March 25, 2022, showing the fire from a different angle. According to the post, a massive blaze broke out at an oil depot in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, after Yemen's Houthi rebels launched multiple drone and missile attacks targeting Saudi infrastructure. Thick black smoke could be seen rising over the city.
Additionally, The Sun also uploaded the same footage on March 26, 2022, identifying it as the attack on Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFj5nDL0y7o
Conclusion
Our research found that the viral video does not show a recent U.S. attack on Iran.Although the United States and Iran have recently exchanged military strikes and attacks on civilian infrastructure have been reported, the viral footage predates the current conflict by several years. It actually shows the March 2022 Houthi attack on Saudi Aramco's petroleum distribution facility in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the claim linking the video to the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict is false and misleading.
Executive Summary
Several social media posts are claiming that Chinese troops have entered nearly 60 kilometres inside Arunachal Pradesh. Amid these claims, a video showing security personnel managing a large crowd is being widely circulated as footage from Arunachal Pradesh. Users are sharing the clip claiming it captures the situation following the alleged Chinese intrusion. CyberPeace Research Wing found the claim to be false. The viral video is not from Arunachal Pradesh. It actually shows Baltal Base Camp during the Amarnath Yatra in Jammu and Kashmir. The Government of India has also categorically denied reports of any recent Chinese intrusion into Indian territory.
Claim
A Facebook user, "Komal Vanshi," shared the video on July 8, 2026, claiming that Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers had entered deep inside Arunachal Pradesh and referring to alleged incidents along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). The post was accompanied by the viral video, suggesting it was related to the alleged intrusion.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1585091393251089
Fact Check
We first carefully examined the viral video. During the analysis, we noticed barricades bearing the words "Jammu & Kashmir Police." This clearly indicated that the footage could not have been recorded in Arunachal Pradesh.
In the next step, we extracted multiple keyframes from the video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. Although the video was widely shared with the Arunachal Pradesh claim, our search led us to a YouTube Shorts video uploaded on July 7, 2026, identifying the location as Baltal, one of the main base camps for the annual Amarnath Yatra in Jammu and Kashmir.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEfP2RckyJM
The visual details in the YouTube video matched the viral footage, confirming that it was filmed at Baltal Base Camp and had no connection with Arunachal Pradesh or any alleged Chinese military movement
Conclusion
CyberPeace Research Wing found that the viral claim is false. The video being circulated as evidence of a Chinese military incursion into Arunachal Pradesh actually shows crowd management arrangements at Baltal Base Camp during the Amarnath Yatra in Jammu and Kashmir. The footage has been falsely linked to an unrelated claim about Chinese troops entering Indian territory. There is no evidence that the video depicts any incident related to the India-China border.
Brief Overview of the EU AI Act
The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies. The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.
The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.
In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.
Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions
- The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
- Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
- Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
- General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
- The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.
Application & Timeline of Act
The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:
- August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
- February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
- August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models.
- August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
- August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.
The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).
In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers.
CyberPeace Outlook
The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.
The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount.
At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.
References:
- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
- https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
- https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
- https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
- https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
- https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide
