NYT: "It sounded what could be gun shots interrupted Trump’s rally in Pennsylvania. Trump was hurried off the stage and appeared to be bleeding by his ear."
Resolves YES if a bullet or other similar bullet-like projectile hit or grazed him on July 13th https://x.com/WatcherGuru/status/1812251989759418579
Glass does not count.
NOTE #1: I will share my reasoning in advance of my resolution so traders have an opportunity to object. If I am unsure on the closing date or after hearing trader's objections, I would extend the deadline to allow more evidence to arrive.
NOTE #2: If I am unsure AND it is highly unlikely new evidence will arrive, I would decide between resolving based on a Keynesian beauty contest (resolves to current % correcting for any market manipulation) OR resolving based on an external forecast (e.g. another prediction market such as Metaculus or Polymarket, a poll of Manifold users, or asking an AI forecaster). Please share in the comments if you think KBC or one of these external forecast options would be better. Planning to update NOTE #2 once I decide which option is better for the health of the market.
1,000
1.00Resolved too soon. Was medical report released? Has the FBI report come out? Any videos where it is visible? No? I rest my case.
@HenriLaupmaa, do you believe that the FBI report will claim that Donald Trump was not hit by a bullet?
@traders I plan to resolve YES tomorrow night. I am sharing my reasoning in advance of my resolution so traders have an opportunity to object, but I want to stress that I am unlikely delay the resolution unless new evidence emerges or there is strong reason to doubt the evidence presented below.
Also, @ManifoldPolitics has noted that they are willing to re-resolve if contradictory evidence emerges from the congressional task force/other investigations, but I think this is highly unlikely which is why I feel comfortable resolving tomorrow night.
I am resolving YES based on the following evidence:
FBI statement: “What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject’s rifle,” the agency said in an emailed statement sent to The Hill Friday.” https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4795681-fbi-confirms-trump-struck-by-bullet/
Note that I would count fragments of a bullet. This statement suggests that the FBI’s analysis provides conclusive evidence that Trump was hit by a bullet.
New York Times analysis of the audio and visuals:
Even if one does not trust the FBI, the NYT’s analysis provides strong evidence that Trump was hit by a bullet. The key pieces of evidence they present are:
a. Trump “flinches, and his right hand already starts reaching for his right ear during that time between the first audible shot and the second audible shot”
b. When he touches his hand to his right ear, it immediately becomes bloodied.
c. The first bullet traveled in “a straight line from the gunman to the bleachers, clipping Mr. Trump on its path”, meaning that it was “not deflected by first striking an object that would have then sprayed Mr. Trump with debris.”
This analysis essentially rules out the theory that debris rather than a bullet hit Trump.
Here are the relevant quotes:
“A key piece of evidence in The Times’s analysis is a live video feed that captures Mr. Trump’s reaction as the first three gunshots are fired. The crack of the bullets are heard as they pass the microphone that Mr. Trump speaks into. Almost a second elapses between the first and second shots.
During this brief interim, Mr. Trump starts reaching toward his ear, according to footage and audio of the event analyzed by The Times and Rob Maher, an audio forensics expert at Montana State University.
“He flinches, and his right hand already starts reaching for his right ear during that time between the first audible shot and the second audible shot,” Mr. Maher said.
Mr. Trump’s fingers are bloodied as soon as he touches his ear, as seen in a picture taken by Doug Mills, a veteran Times photographer.
A puff of debris captured in a video snippet appeared to show the impact point of that shot — right beside a rally attendee, David Dutch.
“The puff visible at the back of the bleachers appears at the time of the first shot,” Mr. Maher said…
A 3-D model of the rally grounds produced by The Times shows the positions of the shooter and Mr. Trump, and the point where the first bullet hit the bleachers.
The model and the trajectory analysis show that the bullet traveled in a straight line from the gunman to the bleachers, clipping Mr. Trump on its path. This suggests the bullet was not deflected by first striking an object that would have then sprayed Mr. Trump with debris.” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/26/us/politics/trump-shooter-bullet-trajectory-ear.html
Washington post analysis of Trump’s injury
The Washington Post’s analysis (which relies on Babak Sarani, director of trauma and acute care surgery at George Washington University Hospital, and Joseph Sakran, director of emergency general surgery at Johns Hopkins) indicates that Trump’s wound is a “graze wound from a bullet”.
This would rule out the debris theory as well as the theory that Trump’s hand caused the injury.
Relevant quote:
“A Washington Post analysis of photos and videos of the shooting found that former president Trump’s injury appears to be consistent with the attributes of a graze wound from a bullet and not that of bullet fragments, according to two trauma surgeons, Babak Sarani, director of trauma and acute care surgery at George Washington University Hospital, and Joseph Sakran, director of emergency general surgery at Johns Hopkins. The physicians reviewed The Post’s analysis.
“Usually shrapnel flies in random patterns. Because it’s shrapnel, right? It doesn’t go in a straight line. This really looks like a linear laceration is how I would describe,” Sarani told The Post. “So it’s something, it’s going in a straight line which makes you think it’s more the projectile itself, not shrapnel."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/07/26/trump-bullet-shot-assassination-attempt/
Testimony of witnesses
While Trump and his doctor may be unreliable witnesses to the shooting/his injuries, they have both consistently claimed that he was shot in the ear and their statements are consistent with the NYT, the FBI, and the Post’s analysis. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112782066045321247
There have also been no credible reports from rally goers, local law enforcement, or the Secret Service that contradict the evidence that Trump was hit by a bullet. If Trump being shot is a conspiracy, then these witnesses would have to be part of the conspiracy. It seems highly unlikely that there is a conspiracy involving Trump, his rally goers, the FBI, the Secret Service, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and local law enforcement.
Media consensus
Media organizations and fact checkers from the left (NYT, the Post, Snopes and the right (Fox news, the Daily Mail) have reported on the evidence that Trump was hit by a bullet.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bullet-glass-trump-wound/
Quick healing of his ear is consistent with a bullet graze
As mentioned in the WP article posted before the recent reports of Trump’s healed ear:
“High-velocity rounds, such as those likely fired by Crooks, impart energy at a speed that produces a “blast effect” when striking a body that cause a lot of damage. The graze wound like that of the former president would not, Sarani said.
“The bullet literally just grazes you and so very little energy is imparted into you. The rest of it is just dissipated into the air.” he added. “That’s how you, if you are, quote unquote, lucky. The bullet just grazed you.”
Consistent with this, “Leonard Romero -- a forensic firearms examiner who's worked alongside the LAPD and several other law enforcement agencies in this field -- tells TMZ … Trump's ear healing so quickly isn't evidence he wasn't hit (as some have suggested), but on the contrary ... it's actually consistent with a graze from a bullet, as opposed to a more direct impact.”
https://www.tmz.com/2024/07/29/donald-trump-ear-injury-consistent-graze-bullet-ballistics-expert-leonard-romero/ (I know not TMZ is not the most reliable source but I think most mainstream media is steering clear of this story because they assume the matter is settled)
In summary:
Analysis of the visuals, audio, and Trump’s wound by experts indicate his ear being hit by a bullet (or bullet fragments). There are no analyses from credible organizations/experts suggesting that Trump was not hit by a bullet.
This evidence has been reported and confirmed by the FBI, media organizations across the political spectrum, and witnesses of the shooting/Trump’s injury.
There is strong evidence against alternative theories.
Debris/his hand theory: The first bullet (which caused the injury) did not hit anything that could have created debris. Trump’s wound looks like a graze wound rather than a wound from debris or a hand according to trauma experts.
Deception theory: The broad range of actors presenting evidence that Trump was hit by a bullet suggests an unrealistically large and diverse range of people would need to be “in” on this deception. In addition, actors who could benefit from providing credible evidence of deception are instead doing the opposite. For example, liberal organizations and law enforcement organizations could likely benefit from proving that Trump was not hit (e.g. reducing Trump’s electoral prospects for liberals or reducing the reputation hit taken by the Secret Service/the FBI). However, these organizations are presenting evidence in favor of Trump being hit by a bullet rather than the reverse. This is consistent with their being conclusive evidence that Trump was hit such that these actors do not want to risk their reputations by peddling falsehoods.
(just to note, my initial delaying of the resolution was because I did not have time to review the evidence fully last week and, from my quick read, I thought it might take longer than it did for conclusive evidence to emerge.)
I'm the fourth largest YES holder. I did make bets on the assumption that this would resolve sooner. The possibility that you might use a poll to resolve this question made me very anxious. However, I am impressed with your report on the evidence. I've never put that much effort into justifying a resolution before. I hope this hasn't stressed you out too much.
OP and the mods watching are slowly weakening their reputation every day this market is not resolved YES.
But there is no rush to resolve, everybody just needs to be patient.
This would be reasonable if we were waiting on a specific information source, but we are not. Trump himself, his physician, the Secret Service, independent analysis (link), and finally the FBI (link) have confirmed a bullet hit Trump in the ear. It is already one of the most well-documented moments in US history.
I’m still not convinced that a bullet hit Trump.
Occam’s Razor states that the number of entities used to explain something should not be increased beyond reason. Sure, we could entertain the idea that a bullet struck a glass panel and a piece then struck his ear (but nowhere else on his head) and Trump’s team conspired to lie about it for their political gain. But it would be magnitudes more likely that a bullet directly punctured his ear, when we know a sniper was firing in his direction and almost certainly intended to strike Trump’s head. When credible evidence all coincides with this logic, we can assume this is what actually happened for all intents and purposes.
Everyone’s nightmare scenario is that this resolves YES now and, at some arbitrary point in the future, it is “confirmed” that a bullet did not in fact hit Trump. I think it would be appropriate in that near-0 event to unresolve this market. There is simply so much evidence to counter the alternative theories, that it’s actually better to take that risk of resolving right now than allow uncertainty to fester where almost none actually exists.
If you dislike delays in resolution, you may want to avoid markets that clearly signal unwillingness to resolve quickly
I want to point out that OP manipulated the rules after hundreds of traders had already bet.
The market was originally supposed to close July 21. On July 16 it was pushed back to July 31, then on July 24 it was pushed all the way to the end of 2024.
Everyone who bought into the market early on could’ve rightfully assumed a yes/no resolution within days. But OP later added “Notes” to the description to let the conspiracy theorists basically filibuster against a YES resolution. And OP also suggested some sort of ridiculous partial resolution.
But rest assured, I’m not touching one of this user’s markets again anytime soon.
There has been complete capitulation from the moderation team, and no way to escalate to an admin or someone who could adjudicate claims.
Instead of admitting to a problem, or a gap, there is insane complacency that you would expect from an incumbent with an impregnable moat. It’s “normal” and in fact “good” to unilaterally change resolution criteria. It’s demanding and weird to ask for moderators to push for less ambiguity and definitive rules.
Critically, it’s obvious that it’s no one’s job to have high quality markets. This place is not run by people who are focused on product success.
Hi!
I think this should probably resolve YES in two days, roughly, but I think the creator has been reasonable. It's been two and a half days since the FBI evidence came out, it's reasonable to wait a few days to see if something else happens. Sometimes institutions or the media are just wrong. Waiting months from here would be a mistake, but days is fine, and IMO better than instaresolving. I'm open to being persuaded, though.
OP and the mods watching are slowly weakening their reputation every day this market is not resolved YES.
Manifold policy today is that creators have broad discretion on when and how to resolve markets, and that mods should intervene only in cases where the creator's clearly inactive or making a mistake. If the OP waited another month to resolve, that is within their discretion per current instructions given to moderators. The OP waiting a few days, after the FBI statement comes out is entirely allowed and, in my opinion, fine. I think it's arguable that policy should change though
I think it would be appropriate in that near-0 event to unresolve this market.
Personal opinion: Manifold intends to grow with the pivot, and have many markets that have tens of millions if not billions of mana in volume. Using unresolutions like this will become untenable when that much value is on the line, imo, so I think it's good that we establish norms for not doing that now.
I think having a norm of waiting days to a week after "definitive evidence" is available on controversial or popular markets might be good. Media reports and US institutions are sometimes wrong and confidently so. I don't really think this market is more likely to not be YES than any other soft market that resolves YES, but caution is reasonable. Waiting a month or more would be less reasonable, and do I think this market should resolve in the next few days.
If you dislike delays in resolution, you may want to avoid markets that clearly signal unwillingness to resolve quickly
Markets whose resolution depends on interpreting the news necessarily might not resolve quickly, because it's possible the evidence you're looking for just doesn't exist until a few months have passed.
Everyone who bought into the market early on could’ve rightfully assumed a yes/no resolution within days. But OP later added “Notes” to the description to let the conspiracy theorists basically filibuster against a YES resolution. And OP also suggested some sort of ridiculous partial resolution.
(edited because I misstated something). Close dates on manifold (and polymarket!) are not necessarily part of the resolution criteria unless otherwise specified. A close date on Manifold specifies when trading is halted. For markets about future events, the close date can implicitly be part of the criteria if no date is specified in the description ("Will Trump say the word Obama" closing in a year would probably have one, "Will bitcoin hit $10k before $100k" with a close date 2 weeks probably wouldn't), although it's up to the creator. For markets about the truth of past events, the close date doesn't mean anything other than an implied end of trading. (On polymarket, they say "This is estimated end date. See rules below for specific resolution details."). Creators are allowed to extend close dates if the criteria don't specify a time for resolution. I think this should be communicated better, such as with a popup similar to Polymarket's, but I think it's the best policy, because if evidence hadn't come out by August the creator shouldn't be forced to resolve to 50/50 or N/A (as that'd distort probabilities if an early YES is more likely than an early NO vs the actual probability).
There has been complete capitulation from the moderation team, and no way to escalate to an admin or someone who could adjudicate claims.
You can escalate anything to an admin by messaging David, the community manager.
Seems like we might not get any definitive evidence. OP, definitely don't rush a resolution. If solid evidence doesn't come out over the next few months I recommend resolving based on your own evaluation of the probability, since other approaches have major flaws, and you have the implicit trust of all traders (otherwise they wouldn't have traded in the first place).
I strongly disagree with this. Traders did not bet on a market about Dismal's probability estimate, they bet on a market about the fact of the matter. I think Manifold should have some kind of policy against the sort of Keynesian beauty contest resolution described in the description.
I mean, they shouldn't be able to resolve 'will the sun rise tomorrow' NO. There's going to have to be some threshold. I think resolving this to, say, 85% because you doubt the claims given would be bad. That gives creators the ability to misresolve markets and claim it's just their credence! I think it'd be bad for bettors to have to individually evaluate each market creator's trustworthiness before betting because they're not going to do that, they're going to bet on untrustworthy markets anyway and be upset when it goes wrong. The 5th most traded market on the site is currently horribly broken (POTUS market without a harris option) even though a better POTUS market was available at the time because the creator poured money into boosts and users did not care that the market was bad