| Retort | People are presenting evidence against air rods, but the author continuously says that these people are wrong because the evidence they find are "Hoaxes." |
| Quantity and Quality | The author makes numerous claims that air rods are real, either because they would be incredibly interesting to learn about or because there's so much photographic evidence of it, meaning that they have to be real in these regards. |
| Repetition | Continuously saying that air rods are real while also saying everyone that isn't an expert on the subject is an amature, is wrong, or simply produces Hoaxes |
| Aggregation | Leading parts into the whole: Air rods can't be bugs or birds caught on camera at weird angles, they have to be a real thing, they might be another form of matter that we have no idea about, and, therefore, we should study them |
| Clarity | The explination of how to tell the difference between a real air rod and a fake hoax, meaning that the author knows how to tell this difference and strenghtens his rules because of it |
| Model | The main "researchers" who are currently trying to identify what exactly an Air Rod is, and, therefore, should be followed because of their expertice. |
| Antimodel | The people who are trying to prove that air rods are a hoax, who try to find every other sort of way that could explain these strange appearances. |
Hi Jalen! I think it's interesting that your Cryptid page has so much about the hoaxes, so maybe your argument could be related to how they want to prove their creature exists, but in an authentic way without resorting to use evidence that they know isn't real.
ReplyDelete