Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31981697-20170722123329/@comment-32182236-20171027135909

"But it goes together with the rest, eg. that Toby is using the Annoying Dog, which is by the way his original character, as his avatar, and that the Annoying Dog in the game bears many similarities with Toby."

It goes together with more non-credible evidence, like the kickstarter and tweets. Glitchtale has nearly 10 separate episodes already, and many fan-creations, is it now canon, because a bunch of non-canon evidence says so? Also, the only similarity I've spotted is that the dog is an indie game designer. Absolutely nothing about the dog I've seen is true for Toby, and as I've pointed out, there are LOTS of indie-game designers. Take for example, Scott Cawthon, or Notch. (Pre-Mojang)

"(he said that his tweets aren't canon, not that we should be ignoring them)"

But if his tweets aren't canon, then we SHOULD be ignoring them. We cam't use non-canon sources as evidence. Papyrus isn't Waluigi (Underpants), Mario doesn't brawl with Peach (Super Smash vs Mario), ect. Non-canon sources should never be used as evidence like that.

I'm erasing assumptions that come from non-canon sources, just as QM erases the basic assumption that superposition does not exist. You're erasing a room that's a part of the game, and therefore canon. Canon evidence trumps non-canon evidence. Every time. While the room was indeed an easter egg, that's where the similarities between our positions end. It's meant to be a canon easter egg, like every other easter egg in the game. Gaster? He's canon. So Sorry? He's canon. Sans' workshop? That's canon. The dog room? That's canon. We even see the dog in other, canonically important situatons, he's the one who steals the legendary artifact, Papyrus' special attack, and also Toriel's phone!

If all the canon evidence is properly explained, we can't prove it's an AU, because there is no deviation from canon facts. Is there deviation from fanon assumptions? Yes. Are fanon assumptions necessarily canon? No. Could some of them be true? Yes, but not ALL of them.

The figurative arrow isn't even real evidence, all it's really doing is this-Take a few vague similarities, use some non-credible sources, put them all together and BAM-There's the theory. In fact, the same arrow actually points to Sans being Ness-They both teleport using magic, he knows about resets (If you've reset before as Ness, I'm pretty sure you would know about resets), "we" call that the sun, and Undertale has plenty of similarties to Earthbound. To top it off, when he first announced it in a tweet, he called it "Underbound 2". What, the phase distorter can't transport organic material? Well that's why he's a skeleton. Bones are organic material? It's a metaphor. So let's erase this small insignificant canon evidence in favor of these non-canon vague similarties! There's some cold, hard speculation! ...Yeah, that won't work.

So why can't the game in question be the Halloween Hack?