The primary resolution source will be how TraceWoodgrains resolves this bet, though I'm willing to take matters into my own hands if he gets hit by a bus or seems to have been corrupted.
https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1845467773209637293
This thread is about him arbitrating multiple bets; only the original bet between @raspy_aspie and @NickClairmont1 is relevant for the resolution of this market.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ315 | |
| 2 | Ṁ217 | |
| 3 | Ṁ203 | |
| 4 | Ṁ198 | |
| 5 | Ṁ160 |
People are also trading
@ShakedKoplewitz He wrote this thread this morning, but it's been trading high independent of that. If you think he's obviously wrong you can go tell him so (please be civil).
@zax I see. I find it more likely that people willing to produce original bad fakes took time and effort to produce convincing fakes when called out on it than that they originally just happened to publish only their most fake-looking images, but I get where he's coming from.
@zax update: alright, I see that the most implausible parts of the claims (that these were shot at point blank range and somehow didn't deform or cause exit wounds) were retracted, and also that these were single screenshots of CT scans and not a rays as originally implied. Given this it's at least more plausible they weren't literally photoshopped, although the context and reliability were lied about to pretend it was evidence for executions instead of stray bullets. I do in general have a higher prior that people are more willing to lie about context to present a false narrative than they are to outright fabricate evidence, so it's at least plausible (although man, the original photos do look really fake).