Evaluating Video Evidence

Max provides physical evidence of airdropped bombs.

He goes on to acknowledge that while the video was not the best source of evidence, it was getting ridiculous that there was suggestion that there were no bombings. However, markets do not resolve based on likelihood but evidence.

Mr.Unknown and Lazy Cat immediately debunk the video's credibility.

VLDNVSTK acknowledges the footage to be circumstantial, not verified, evidence.

Mr.Unknown and Lazy Cat go on to discuss how realistic the bombing would be, that surely the airstrikes would be bigger than the small damage shown.

In the end, Mr.Unknown and VLDNVSTK concluded that the airstrike claims were unfounded.

Spy adds on that the supposed proof of strikes most "Yes" supporters are showing were likely from cluster munitions.

Pazzg7 pushes back by providing a video clip by CNN of the alleged airstrikes.

However, Car immediately calls him out for not verifying his evidence.

El Gato also piles in on Pazzg7's error.

Pazzg7 argues that in actuality, the Thai army might not publish the date of their strikes. That being said, a lack of evidence is not solid proof that the event qualified.

Summary

Disputes over video evidence focused on its credibility, origin, and scale. Some claimed it showed real damage from airstrikes, while others rejected it as unverifiable or exaggerated. The conversation showed how users interpreted the burden of proof differently, especially when it came to matching visual evidence to the market criteria.

Coming Up

In the next chapter, we examine the fundamental disagreement over what counted as sufficient evidence to resolve the market.