Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31981697-20170722123329/@comment-32182236-20171021122112

I was actually considering that once the Singularity happened, the AI would discover it for us within a year. (After the singularity, not after now. We're not discovering immortality in 2018, and surely not in 2017.) I guess I should have rephrased it:AI will crack immortality FOR us by 2060. Of course, like I said before, this isn't even the real Toby anyway. Sure, Toby might live until 211X, but he's still not a dog. Therefore, we already have a tangent between Toby and the dog. Since we've confirmed these tangents exist, why can't the game be another example of it? Why do you consider this is proof that the game MUST be Undertale, if the proof clearly isn't absolute, and has exceptions? (If Toby does die before 211X, then that serves as yet another exception!)

"The proof is that Toby made that character, and then pretended that he is him. Literally. If you followed his tweets, you would know what I was talking about."

Take a peek at THIS tweet from Toby:https://twitter.com/tobyfox/status/802150493992714240?lang=en

Toby's tweets are non-canon, because if they were canon, that would include the tweet that confirms they aren't. We can't use tweets as evidence, for all we know, they could be jokes like this one. (Because I'm pretty sure the bootleg nursery rhyme is non-canon, and Toby decided that from the start-Mainly because Toby didn't even make those rhymes. This tweet is clear evidence that Toby DOES make joking tweets.)

"But you can't. Your theory can't explain what I wrote above, since the Annoying Dog representing Toby, while not canon confirmed, is an established fact." It has to be canon confirmed to be considered fact, though. The two are one and the same. If it's not canon-confirmed, we can't use it as evidence. We're back at square one-Where is the evidence that this dog is meant to be Toby Fox? (What you're describing is an avatar. But, even these can have deviations from the one who uses it-After all, if Toby went around stealing bones, there would be witnesses. There being witnesses is also something that happens in Undertale, Papyrus witnessing his bones being stolen. So now that we've established that even personality can be changed in an avatar, we're back at square one here too. What's to say this isn't yet another deviation between Toby and the dog? [Pretty sure talking/barking into a computer screen isn't how Toby made Undertale-That wouldn't take three years, and the odds of it making a GOOD, or even mediocre game are astronomicaly low.])

He did? Well good of him. This leads into my take on patches, and why I believe that at this point, no mistakes like this remain.

You see, while NOW, there are no paradoxes, there was one specific paradox that I know about that did exist. In v1.0 of the game, even if Papyrus was killed, he would still appear in the Undyne cutscene. He wouldn't speak, but he was there:You could see him. This was fixed in v1.0001.

When paradoxes/glitches are discovered, Toby (and Temmie) make a patch to fix them. The logo was discovered well before the 1.0 patch, and the mushroom had to be deliberate-Because in this case, something was ADDED that wasn't supposed to be there, above it, it matches the logo. This is more of a case on how Papyrus' markings aren't an exact match to that of Starmen.

However, your final sentence actually makes sense! After taking another look at the official boxart of the game (Not the sprite), the Flowey sprite is indeed below the Undertale logo, and that mushroom-like object does fit Flowey's sprite quite well.

I'm explaining how the other pieces of evidence can still make sense with this new piece of evidence. If I just ignored it and said "Well, those aren't canon", I would indeed be cherrypicking. But I DID explain the evidence in the room under my theory, in my previous post-Just a normal, worn own rug, a normal rope, pretty sure Toby doesn't make statues of himself... Yes, the dog made a game, but it wasn't the one he's literally inside (it's probably as bad as his random internet posts-What are the odds of barking up an amazing game without understanding what you're coding?) This brings me to another piece of evidence, that I've just discovered. The actual designing of Undertale.

You see, in Undertale's canon, Toby is the sole designer of his game-Toby barked up a WHOLE game. But, the story of Undertale's development is more complex than that. Toby didn't make the whole game. There was a second designer-Temmie Chang. So, right there-A deviation on how the game was designed. If the game in question was Undertale, why didn't Temmie help design it? Why did Toby bark up the WHOLE game, contrary to what actually happened?

No evidence within the game is "insignificant" if it can serve as proof against a possibility. Calling it insignificant like that is cherrypicking in of itself. ALL the evidence within the game must be explained. All of it.