Lack of First-Hand Evidence

One-Sided Evidence

Car argued that the available evidence was one-sided and did not represent a consensus of credible reporting. The resolution criteria required either official acknowledgment by the Thai government or a consensus among credible sources. However, most of the coverage lacked input from Thai sources, raising questions about whether those criteria had truly been met.

He also raised concerns about the implications of Polymarket's clarification, particularly its role in deciding what is or isn't considered reality.

Car further pointed to the absence of video or visual confirmation of the alleged strikes. He questioned the validity of the claim, noting that no verifiable media had surfaced to support it, which was unusual, to say the least.

He also noted that Cambodia and Thailand were providing contradictory statements, highlighting a lack of consensus.

FhantomBets referenced official Thai government reporting, which mentioned a strike on July 24 and 25.

VLDNVSTK addressed the claim of a missing timestamp, stating that the alleged 12:30 pm airstrikes lacked independent verification and physical evidence.

Lack of Confirmation That Strikes Weren't Intercepted

Another issue raised was whether the alleged strikes had been intercepted.

According to the resolution criteria, intercepted missiles or drones would not count toward satisfying the market conditions. The absence of clear confirmation on this point introduced additional ambiguity.

Summary

Some users focused on the lack of first-hand evidence, while others questioned whether the strikes had been intercepted. The absence of visual proof and unclear confirmation from Thai sources made it difficult to verify the claims with confidence. This gap in direct evidence became a central point of contention in the broader dispute.

Coming Up

In the next chapter, we take a look at the video evidence cited by supporters of "Yes."