I feel as though anyone who uses the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", has completely forgotten the children's tale "The King's new clothes".
I mean, if it's clearly not there, and all of your attempts to prove that it is there have failed, then it's probably not there. As the saying goes, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
So yeah, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. It's not concrete proof of course, but it's certainly mounting evidence.
Now what is this all in relation to?
I have no idea.
I wrote the original script years ago, but it wasn't funny. And I've only just recently come across it and been able to make it into something halfway decent.
First
Previous
I mean, if it's clearly not there, and all of your attempts to prove that it is there have failed, then it's probably not there. As the saying goes, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
So yeah, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. It's not concrete proof of course, but it's certainly mounting evidence.
Now what is this all in relation to?
I have no idea.
I wrote the original script years ago, but it wasn't funny. And I've only just recently come across it and been able to make it into something halfway decent.