🏅 Top traders

NYT analysis

https://youtu.be/aEs0GXA7RyU?si=pm9HDxOOxZSvGZQs

Sufficient evidence for a NO was not presented before the market close deadline. This market defaults to YES.

New evidence coming to light after resolution will not cause this resolution to be overturned.

Thank you for this market, by the way. The claim is one that I had encountered through friends and hadn’t done the research on. This is possibly the best use case I have ever seen for a prediction market.

@moobunny To an extent, it's a glorified bounty market. But yes, it seems to be a very effective way to crowd source and incentivize OSINT research.

@moobunny At time of comment, these are the market stats.

@Quroe The biggest risk of it, I think, would be a false negative confirmation (i.e. YES resolution for a known-fake-by-someone image), due to it either not reaching the people with the information or approach you’re looking for, or those people not feeling sufficiently motivated to argue the case—perhaps because they perceive that you might be resistant to being convinced. But it casts a broad net in a diverse community of people who make a hobby of knowing things, and provides a meaningful (to people here lol) incentive for trying, which is about as good as it gets.

@moobunny That's true. The incentive of this market is only disprove, and I'm making a logical innacuracy to say that this proves it's real rather than saying we're failing to disprove it, but I think it's an acceptable trade off for ease of communication here.

Either way, if new evidence comes to light after close, I won't be changing how this resolves. However this resolves will be locked in, and this market only represents the information we had access to at the time.

Final call. Only comments posted before market close count. All other comments and arguments posted after close will not be considered.

You must convince me entirely with arguments posted before close.

Keeping up communication. I am still convinced this is a YES. I have no "gotchas" up my sleeve at this time.

This image from the NYT makes me think the coloration cannot be correct. I don't know how to find actual proof, and maybe it's just shadows; but your image is very light tan. I struggle to believe the dark object carried by the ICE agent, darker than his coat, is the same tan gun from the X post.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/01/24/us/minneapolis-shooting-alex-pretti-timeline.html

Hmmm, upon further review maybe it matches. Angle of the gun means we're seeing the dark bottom.

Here's a freezeframe from the X video that shows what might be the tan color on top. You can see the ICE agent's dark gloved hand and the tan streak at the top of the gun. If you want to see the motion, its between sections 18 and 19 in the X video.

@DannyqnOht I'm not convinced this is sufficient evidence to resolve NO. The criteria to resolve NO are very strict. Though, it is a notable observation.

I'm confused, is there any doubt about the fact he had a gun? That the Feds took from him? So why would the picture be fake?

@AhronMaline I am not doubting that he was carrying. I am trying to confirm that this exact image is the actual gun he had.

Or, if not "confirm", then "fail to disprove".

@Quroe I suppose that even with Pretti's actual gun in hand, they might have posted a stock photo instead out of pure laziness... but is anyone claiming this? And why is it relevent?

@AhronMaline Because I'm trying to convince myself to purge sources from my information intake that are perpetuating talking points without doing their own research first.

@Quroe was Pretti an illegal alien?

@GazDownright I do not think so. Like I said, I don't believe what this X post was spewing. The version I linked to is the unedited version. He updated it to say "suspect" after, presumably, people called him out on the lie.

I'm not letting him get away with that edit, so I linked to the original.

It would be a nice bonus to find an earlier timestamped photo than this one here. I am curious how this guy was one of the first to get his hands on this image.

@Quroe I was just thinking that if you need a reason to purge this liar, you didn't need to look at the photo. The text would be enough.

I also guess that people get a little bit anxious when you do something that will, strictly speaking, bolster his integrity

@GazDownright Understandable. This is a test of figuring out where the photo originated. This is not an influencer I follow. They came up as one of the first instances of this photo on the internet, ever.

I find it concerning that the first chronological instance I found of this photo online was from somebody who is untrustworthy. I'm wondering if the photo began circulating because it was first to market, and people just assumed it was real because of that, not because it was real.

@GazDownright To simplify, this was never somebody I followed in the first place. Unless somebody can convince me otherwise, I am ridding myself of the people who confidently claimed this image was fake because they said it was on the internet before the incident.

I'll put a disclaimer in the description, though, that he seems untrustworthy.

@Quroe aha! I didn't catch that angle! I agree, the people claiming it was fake doesn't help at all.

In fact, they further detract from the important point: gun or not, real photo or not, they killed him out of sheer incompetence

@GazDownright I am currently convinced of your second paragraph right now too, yes. I am angry, but I'm trying to stay somewhat professional and level headed in this comment section.

@traders ~50 to ~65% seems surprisingly low to me right now.

Are you all feeling like you don't trust me as a market judge? Or are you all distrustful of the media and/or authorities?

If it's the former, feel free to probe me for reassurance in your confidence.

@Quroe I've bet it up myself already. But the original quote that said it appears in a reddit thread before has been deleted and other posts quotes all have community notes on them.

@Kfredric note the reason it appeared in a reddit thread dated before the 24th was because the search shows the date the thread was made but the image was posted in the thread after the og image post.

@Kfredric Okay, yeah. This is exactly the rumor I'm trying to fact check.

I've been unsubscribing from the influencers and "news" agencies that used this talking point.

I did not trust the providence of the photo since you can see all sorts of other falsehoods in the link I posted in the market description. But lying about the narrative doesn't mean the image is fake, necessarily.

This market is my attempt to give this talking point, that the photo is fake, one last chance before I totally write it off.

So many lies on both sides of this issue... Truth is decaying.

I will say that one side is drastically less truthful than the other, though. https://youtu.be/-VBJx116hqk?si=VitmsEtQ95Bs0Nyw