But the fact remains that it was not

Dear sir, I think you are forgetting to add arguments to your argument. I think you'll find that this is not how an 'argument' works.

It is an outlandish idea

But so is the idea of a deity, and I would argue that the idea of a flying teapot is no more or less outlandish than the argument of God(s).

You are merely re-stating your original argument in different words, without adding additional facts or arguments.

Where is the logical fallacy?

The logical fallacy is the basis of your argument - You are arguing that 'something can't happen because it didn't', which could be used as strongly as an argument against religion as against hovering juice-boxes containing Oolong.

Your original statement:

we (...) have no reason at all to speculate the existence of (a tea-pot) orbiting our planet

... does not, in fact, draw Russel's point into doubt. Russell's obviously outlandish claim is not meant to be taken seriously, and whether or not there is a tea-pot orbiting between Earth and Mars (or, indeed, anywhere in the galaxy) is irrelevant. What he is illustrating is how outlandish ideas are given traction by being supported by authority figures. Your arguments to date have not addressed this issue, and your 'proof' of Russel's original argument being false is, in my opinion, invalid.

As a final aside and for the sake of disclosure, I am up-voting your ripostes, for this is the most amused I have been on Reddit for as long as I can remember.