could any buddy tell me why july 9 is 100 but july 13 is not ?
could any buddy tell me why july 9 is 100 but july 13 is not ?
2026-07-15 · Polymarket · 25 条相关讨论
could any buddy tell me why july 9 is 100 but july 13 is not ?
could any buddy tell me why july 9 is 100 but july 13 is not ?
Because July 9 got clarified
Because July 9 got clarified
you dumfk? july 9 there is a strike confirmed and clarified
you dumfk? july 9 there is a strike confirmed and clarified
what it has to do with july 13?
what it has to do with july 13?
i am asking because of this 🙁
i am asking because of this 🙁
<:pepecry:1480174599093096560> new to poly/strike? july 14 and 15 there is clear reporting of strike
<:pepecry:1480174599093096560> new to poly/strike? july 14 and 15 there is clear reporting of strike
i think there is a problem with timing a bit, unless someone can find a good source, bcs i see that what should be the striked state is Kuwait with "three of its border centres and an offshore oil platform under attack", but some of the sources are kinda unclear if it happened late into july 12th or july 13th so, i guess search is on
i think there is a problem with timing a bit, unless someone can find a good source, bcs i see that what should be the striked state is Kuwait with "three of its border centres and an offshore oil platform under attack", but some of the sources are kinda unclear if it happened late into july 12th or july 13th so, i guess search is on
well, for the controversial July 9th one there was an actual WSJ report confirming the hit, would need an equivalent for this date
well, for the controversial July 9th one there was an actual WSJ report confirming the hit, would need an equivalent for this date
bcs 12th resolved Y, question is if there is a distinct attack on 13th i guess <:kekw:939703711628947487>
bcs 12th resolved Y, question is if there is a distinct attack on 13th i guess <:kekw:939703711628947487>
where was the hit?
where was the hit?
At least for the rest there was a clear WSJ report
At least for the rest there was a clear WSJ report
checking NASA FIRMS satellite info to see
checking NASA FIRMS satellite info to see
tried that myself, but didn't get anything for Y side, thoughts?
tried that myself, but didn't get anything for Y side, thoughts?
Yeah about that
Yeah about that
same, no strong evidence even in confirm hit days
same, no strong evidence even in confirm hit days
so i guess for once this might go N unless something surfaces rq within what, a day?
so i guess for once this might go N unless something surfaces rq within what, a day?
I can't remember how good the evidence was for that day. Tried checking myself but with the Arabian Time factor its just too confusing. NO seems interesting though, didnt get a credible source confirming hit, unlike July 9th
I can't remember how good the evidence was for that day. Tried checking myself but with the Arabian Time factor its just too confusing. NO seems interesting though, didnt get a credible source confirming hit, unlike July 9th
because even when the rules got changed, the totality is kinda low on this one, wsj was big compared to this
because even when the rules got changed, the totality is kinda low on this one, wsj was big compared to this
btw my claude even said that the claims for 13th might be fabricated according to the firms api scouting <:kekw:939703711628947487>
btw my claude even said that the claims for 13th might be fabricated according to the firms api scouting <:kekw:939703711628947487>
the yes claims, bcs apparently irgc claimed somewhere that they destroyed ammo warehouses and set fire to himars launchers
the yes claims, bcs apparently irgc claimed somewhere that they destroyed ammo warehouses and set fire to himars launchers
Ok.. maybe some panicked because of July 9th and sold NO or switched
Ok.. maybe some panicked because of July 9th and sold NO or switched
i mean, an ace can still pop up somehow somewhere else, but this looks good for N, <@499341611789058048> your thoughts on this?
i mean, an ace can still pop up somehow somewhere else, but this looks good for N, <@499341611789058048> your thoughts on this?
how will this even resolve then? 50/50 or brace Y and rest refund?
how will this even resolve then? 50/50 or brace Y and rest refund?
btw here is some useless news: Iran just released a NOTAM blocking all non-approved drone flights
btw here is some useless news: Iran just released a NOTAM blocking all non-approved drone flights
as always, look at AI's opinion with a grain of salt, but look: - "Both currently on fire" (5th Fleet HQ Juffair + Sheikh Isa): the NOAA-20/21 overpasses crossed Bahrain at ~00:30–01:40 AST and again around midday, on Jul 13 and Jul 14. A base "currently on fire" burns across at least one of those windows. Detections at Juffair: zero. On Sheikh Isa itself: zero (only the recurring off-base flare 5.5 km away). - "Destroyed the fuel tanks… at Ali Al Salem": a fuel-farm fire is the single easiest thing VIIRS detects — hundreds of megawatts, burns for hours to days, visible through smoke. Ali Al Salem shows zero detections within 8 km across all four days. Compare: ordinary oil-field flares 50 km away registered clearly every night. A burning fuel depot that out-shines nothing while a routine flare shows up is not a thing. - The radar, Patriot, drone-C2, and hangar claims are unfalsifiable by satellite (small targets, brief burns) — but they're also unconfirmed by anyone besides the IRGC. And the sourcing side: everything you pasted traces to IRGC statements, relayed by OSINT accounts. The host states' own statements from that window were interceptions (Kuwait), sirens without damage reports (Bahrain), and "threats outside our borders" (UAE). No independent journalist, official, or imagery has confirmed a single one of those specific destructions — which is remarkable in countries full of phones if two major bases were visibly ablaze. So: the maximalist Jul 13 claims look like IRGC battle-damage inflation, the same genre as the "85 bases" claim we debunked earlier. Does that make NO the trade at ~47–60? I
as always, look at AI's opinion with a grain of salt, but look: - "Both currently on fire" (5th Fleet HQ Juffair + Sheikh Isa): the NOAA-20/21 overpasses crossed Bahrain at ~00:30–01:40 AST and again around midday, on Jul 13 and Jul 14. A base "currently on fire" burns across at least one of those windows. Detections at Juffair: zero. On Sheikh Isa itself: zero (only the recurring off-base flare 5.5 km away). - "Destroyed the fuel tanks… at Ali Al Salem": a fuel-farm fire is the single easiest thing VIIRS detects — hundreds of megawatts, burns for hours to days, visible through smoke. Ali Al Salem shows zero detections within 8 km across all four days. Compare: ordinary oil-field flares 50 km away registered clearly every night. A burning fuel depot that out-shines nothing while a routine flare shows up is not a thing. - The radar, Patriot, drone-C2, and hangar claims are unfalsifiable by satellite (small targets, brief burns) — but they're also unconfirmed by anyone besides the IRGC. And the sourcing side: everything you pasted traces to IRGC statements, relayed by OSINT accounts. The host states' own statements from that window were interceptions (Kuwait), sirens without damage reports (Bahrain), and "threats outside our borders" (UAE). No independent journalist, official, or imagery has confirmed a single one of those specific destructions — which is remarkable in countries full of phones if two major bases were visibly ablaze. So: the maximalist Jul 13 claims look like IRGC battle-damage inflation, the same genre as the "85 bases" claim we debunked earlier. Does that make NO the trade at ~47–60? I