>There are people upset over the legendaries so much theyre

>>26253253
>there are denialfags backpedaling saying they only denied one specific owl
But that's what happened, it's not backpedaling. What's so hard to understand about this?

Imagine it was just grass type with no other similarities, denialbros would say that roothoot was fake, because it was, and owlfags would say it was close enough because at least part of it was right. It's a different mon, the fakemon was fake, this isn't hard to grasp.

>>26253493
Roothoot was concept art, we've been claiming that forever now. Rowlet has pretty much the exact same coloration. It is too much of a stretch to say it was a coincidence. This isn't hard to grasp.

>>26253588
It's not too much of a stretch, roothoot came out after the copyright info was dropped, it was styled after it. It's a different mon. Roothoot wasn't real. It's not real. How many times should is at it? Look at roothoot, look at Rowlet, see how they are not the same thing, see how roothoot was not real.

>>26253647
Not to mention that those who believed in Roothoot also supported the existence of Cubble and Finpip

Roothoot is love, Roothoot is life. Roorhoot shall live on forever in our hearts.