I was the poster of 'pics or it didn't happen'. I am not a conspiracy theorist, raging internet commenter, etc. I was actually fairly upset by the reaction to my post. I found the replies, and the downvoting, for the most part failed to take my point (though it wasn't spelled out) for what it was: 'pics or it didn't happen' is meant to be the reaction of both an assiduous journalist, and an intelligent reader when faced with a story given like this. I am not more informed as to the facts of the story than the author was - I can't offer counterpoints. What I can do, and what I didn't see displayed by a community I broadly have high respect for, is spot telltales of very bad journalism when I see it. Any scientific article posted here that doesn't link to the original paper, that doesn't question or review what it is discussing, generally attracts similar points. Why, on a story about the US seizing and executing Osama (in quite an unexpected manner!), does anybody effectively doing the same get turned upon so severely? You'll notice that the 'bollocks' post starts with an explanation of something in the story gives cause for concern as to consistency which neither author nor readers seem concerned with. Is the distinction even subtler than the one you highlighted, or is it in fact less real, or applicable to this situation, than you think it is?