Fog-bound In That Dodgem

Reports that say that something

(a horse’s meal, a song, a highland fling)

hasn’t happened are always interesting

to me, because as we know, there are known knowns

(lavatories, hats and telephones);

there are things we know we know

(I like two sugars with my cup of joe).

We also know there are known unknowns

(Why is an erection called a jones?) 

That is to say we know there are some things

(why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings)

we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns

(the composition of a unicorn’s bones)

—the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

(What makes the sky blue and the wind blow?)
If I said yes, that would then suggest that

that might be the only place where it might be done which would             not be 

accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate,

but I’m disinclined to mislead anyone

(which would not be for me, or you, much fun).
There’s another way to phrase that

(and don’t tell me I’m talking through my hat)

and that is that the absence of evidence

is not the evidence of absence.

It is basically saying the same thing in a different

way. Simply because you do not have evidence

that something does exist

(and such evidence is very hard to resist)

does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn’t exist

(though rumors to the contrary persist).