I see your point regarding the DNA, but what if other experts analyzed certain features of the tapes and determined that they were either mistranslated by the US or it was not UBL speaking in the tapes?
Other then that, the rest of your evidential criterion reads like a classical
appeal to authority.
Ironic that you would talk about 'experts' and then say that my standards are an appeal to authority.
Here is the thing, I can bet that one guy can make a mistake. That is why newspapers make retractions from time to time.
So if one guy says something, I may listen- but the truth is not exclusive to one source to other sources could examine the same tapes and come up with the same conclusions. If there is
only one or even just a few, then there is some controversy and I will not accept what they say.
And those sources must really say what they are supposed to have said and they must be known quantaties.
There are neo-nazis out there trying to push the idea that the world is really controlled by jews. They will say anything to push their agenda. A lot of these conspiracy theories seem to track back to them. Considering that they can set up a web site, in some cases several web sites, a source that is quoted only on a web site is not to be trusted.
A known quantity like the NYT or Popular Mechanics is not infallible, but they do have a repuation to worry about. And with a story this big, they would not be the only ones to pick things up.
So if multiple known and respected sources pick up a story, independently examine the evidence and report the same thing, it would be something I would listen to.
A web site saying that someone found that tapes were faked- repeated multiple times on other sites- does not meet that standard.
