I'd say 'yes', because over the last couple of centuries there have been parallel and interrelated evolutionary developments along 2 thematic tracks or paths:
(1) What evidence does it take to impress or even convince an audience something extraordinary exists / happened; and
(2) Given such presented evidence, what does it take to convince the audience it's authentic - i.e., not 'faked'.
At first it was primarily a matter of item (1) above. There was word of mouth, followed by a long period of reliance on text and hand-drawn illustrations. Both these presentation modalities were essentially 'take it or leave it', because you can say and / or draw anything.
(This is why 'illuminated' manuscripts aren't necessarily 'illuminating' ...
)
IMHO the revolutionary innovation was photography, which for the first time afforded the ability to show an audience a 'real image' of the allegedly extraordinary subject matter.
The limits of faith in photographic images started to become apparent with the proliferation of trick photos in the last half of the 19th century. With respect to paranormal matters, this came to a head at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries when spiritualist photos were widely debunked.
From that point onward, item (2) became more important. The public was increasingly aware that all sorts of fantastic realistic images could be produced - even in the optimally realistic realm of motion pictures. By the time of the post-WW2 UFO mania, photographic evidence had a relatively short half-life before being scrutinized for authenticity. Fifty to sixty years earlier few readers questioned whether the 'ectoplasm' might be cheesecloth; later many readers would immediately wonder whether the flying disk was actually a thrown hubcap.
Over the last 6 or 7 decades the range of evidence provided in relation to item (1) has expanded to include non-visible / indirect things like signals, radar blips, sensor readings, etc. This in turn has expanded the range of factors that must be taken into account in establishing authenticity (i.e., item (2)).
It's like an escalating arms race ... The more subtle the evidence presented, the more tricky it becomes to validate that evidence. The more sophisticated the means for data collection, the more different ways one has for massaging or faking that data (and / or the explanations put forward for what that data may represent).
This has brought us to the current situation, where (e.g.) nobody claims to see any human-like specter and an electronic readout is all there is to indicate such an entity may have been encountered.