cs109801 wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Ok, but how about this:
Is it true that Springtrap wants to try and kill the Puppet in any way (or something like that)?

No.

Does Springtrap have anything to do with the Puppet?

No.

How do you know?

No evidence.

Then why do you say this not to be true?

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

New theory!!












William Afton is the marionette.

I have some good evidence to back me up. If anyone wants me to present it, I'll be more than happy to.

It's impossible. Custom Night's final cutscene shows that William is still alive after FNAF 3.

Do you want to hear my evidence or not? You can't always just jump to conclusions like that.

Nor can you have a stable theory with a big contradiction like this. Plus, you didn't provide evidence for, so I provided evidence against.

Anywayyy… Here is my evidence.
In the give gifts/give life minigame, you are the Marionette giving gifts to children, then providing them with the animatronic heads. After you do that four times, another gift appears with a WGF jumpscare, then the minigame ends.
Now, if we backtrack to fnaf 4, we find the most important phrase in the entire game.
“I will put you back together.”
If you look closely at the color of the words, it is a different color than the Fredbear color we see talking.
I think that this important phrase is talking about William Afton Giving Life to his son, the CRYING CHILD.
I'm not even going to mention a thing about CC's identity, since it is not important for this theory.
CRYING CHILD IS THE GOLDEN FREDDY THE PUPPET SEEMS TO MISS because William Afton probably could care less about him and gives life to his other son, who is the guy with the Foxy head.
Also, the Golden Freddy gift is completely separate from the other four as it takes place at a different time period. When does it take place? On Night 6, Phone Guy mentions someone crawled into a yellow suit, a spare in the back.
THIS IS THE CRYING CHILD ENTERING THE GOLDEN FREDDY SUIT WITH HELP FROM THE PUPPET.
That's all I have for now. But I shall be back!

That is not evidence for William. First, we don't have any evidence that the Foxy mask kid is alive. Plus, the color of the text of the pigtail girl is the color of said text. Again, it's impossible. Custom Night's final cutscene shows that William is still alive after FNAF 3.

I mean, we've just assumed that the Foxy Mask Kid is Michael, because he had access to the Crying Child's bedroom. Therefore, if we assume this is true, then this means that Michael is alive after FNAF3 as well (I assume you meant Michael where you said William). After all, Baby said over and over again, “ You won't die, you won't die.” Therefore, we have a way for Michael to be alive after FNAF3.

Nextor wrote:

cs477778 wrote:

Ok, Foxy did not cause it. WHY IS EVERYBODY ALWAYS SAYING THAT IT WAS FOXY! Foxy was in Parts and service. And You Try Biting someone if your being taken apart and put back together. So it wasn't Mangle. Old Chica's Jaw is locked so she couldn't have done it. Old Bonnie doesn't even have a head so it couldn't be him either. Old Freddy Chews your head BUT he is on parts and service with Golden Freddy So it wasn't them. That leaves the Toys. It wasn't Toy Bonnie Because He Is occupied on the stage With Toy Freddy. They Both Sing on Stage and one of the rules is not to go on stage. That only leaves Toy Chica (Who Walks around giving everybody cupcakes.) And she only loses it when there are no kids around because that would freak them out. And if she still has her beak, she would be able to do it. IT WAS HER!

Uh… Please tell me you're just outdated and not for real here. There are theories going around that Fredbear caused the Bite of 87, but this can't be true. Phone guys says, " Uh, it's amazing the human body can LIVE without the frontal lobe…" In FNAF4, we hear the crying child die. Therefore, this eliminates Fredbear from the table. And for the record, we shouldn't make blind accusations without a clear lead. After all, Chica couldn't do it because she has no teeth, and lacks the mouth size to bite someone's frontal lobe off.

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

MKMasta wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

MKMasta wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

MKMasta wrote:

Foxyuk wrote:

puppygirlroxatart02 wrote:

Ohailo everybody, it's me PPG. I have a couple theories about FNAF and FNAF 2 that I'm wondering if anyone else has thought about and come to the same conclusion as me.

First: Who was the victim of the Bite of ‘87????

Since it is not mentioned in the second game at all, the first conclusion that you must come to is that the Bite of ’87 has not happened yet. The check that you receive is dated 11-13-1987, meaning that since the Bite has not happened yet, it must have happened some time within the next two months. Along with the check, you receive a notice saying that Freddy Fazbear's Pizza Place is closing. It can't have happened while the restaurant was closed, now could it? That means that it would've had to happen at the end of the week that you were there. On Night Four of the second game, Phone Guy mentions that the animatronic's facial recognition systems aren't working right, and they are acting more hostile towards employees. On Night Six, you are asked to do one more job, a birthday party, staying near the animatronics so that they don't hurt anybody. After that is when the restaurant closes. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!!!!!!!! When you put all of the clues together, you are able to figure out that you, Jeremy Fitzgerald, the character/night guard that you play in FNAF 2, is the victim of the Bite of '87.

It actually isn't. Purple Guy killed 5 children according to the FNAF lore, which started the series. The 5 dead children absorbed their souls into the animatronics, that lead to the Bite of ‘87. (thought it was ’83, but clearly mistaken.) Thus, that means Purple Guy, was TRULY behind it according to my online research. So how 'bout that? Case TRULY closed!

We are looking for the animatronic responsible. It's fairly obvious that PG stuffed them into the suits. But if the Bite of 87' (Yes, not 83) in 4 is in fact the Bite of 87', then PG killing the kids had nothing to do with it.

If you think it was 83, let me ask you this. How can there be a Mangle toy? It cannot be the toy that Mangle was based off of, as Phone Guy heavily implies that Mangle's gimmick was just a quick solution to a problem they had. Nor could it just be a broken Toy Foxy toy, as the toy has 2 endoskeleton heads.

To be honest, there's no real evidence that FNAF2 ever happened. I mean, think about it. the FNAF2 phone calls reference the animatronics there, despite being proven to be training tapes in FNAF3. Therefore, these FNAF2 calls must happen after the Crying Child's incident at the original location. Besides, it explains the 2-headed mangle you brought up. I don't care HOW you redesigned Foxy; NO ONE planned it to have 2 heads! Finally, it explains Scott Cawthon's hint back from FNAF4: “In the FNAF4 mini game, why would the tiny toy chica be missing her beak?”
And this led me to another revelation. “What is seen in the shadows is easily misunderstood in the mind of a child.” Originally, I assumed it referred to the Purple Man easter egg from FNAF4, and it may. But now that we know that Pink Guy and Purple Guy are different people, it makes even more sense in another light. The dead children are just that– children. In the destruction of their animatronic bodies, they misenterpreted the actions of Michael to be hostile, and thus forced him into the Spring Bonnie suit.
Hope that clears things up.
(Rest of the games are real life though)

FNAF 3, anyone? Remember the box with the toys and all that? Yep, FNAF 2 was real. And you gave no sufficient evidence that FNAF 2 isn't real. I actually have no clue what you are talking about. Please try to be specific. Also, that was my entire point about Mangle, no one planned it to have 2 heads so the toy must've been present after FFP reopened, which therefore makes FNAF 4 in 1987.

*sighs laconically* FNAF4 can't be in 1987. Know why? We all know SL happens in between FNAf4 and FNAF2. Well, the paycheck for FNAF2 is in late 1987, and if what we see in FNAF4 is also in 1987, then SL must happen in an incredibly short time period. Besides, the newspaper at the beginning of FNAF2 says, “Vintage pizzeria given new life!” If there was less than a year's gap in between FNAF4 and FNAF2, it wouldn't be called “vintage”, now would it?

Excuse me, but I don't see any proof that SL is inbetween 2 and 4

We know that Pink Guy and Purple Guy are different people now, correct? We only see Pink Guy at the original locations of Fredbear's (Give cake to the children) and the original FFP (Foxy go go go), the one with the springlock suits. Now, Purple Guy (Michael) makes his debut in the FNAF2 location (Save them), and never appears before that. The SL custom nights show us that Michael become this Purple Man in the aftermath of being scooped. Therefore, SL must happen before FNAF2, but after FNAF4, where Mike is still in that blasted Foxy mask.

Except the fact that the PG in 4 and 2 (SAVETHEM) are the same person, as they both have a badge. So if it is Michael, 87 makes sense as it takes place before. Or, if it is William, it still makes sense, as it could take place anytime around then.

Well, there's one problem that you haven't considered. Heck, I didn't consider it until just now.
Michael is NOT the purple man in the shadows for that easter egg. Their heights don't add up. The Atari color of shadows in these minigames is the exact shade of purple we see on that man, but a slightly different shade of purple four our friend Michael.
And while I was thinking about this, something hit me. Have we seen the purple man kill anyone? No. We've seen the Pink man kill, but not Purple man.

That is assuming that Michael is the Foxy kid. This guy has dark brown hair, a gray shirt, and gray shoes. Michael has light brown hair, a purple shirt, and brown shoes. Not to mention the skin color. Before you point out how people wear different shirts everyday, both CC and his brother both wear the same shirt everyday. Also, because of the color inconsistencies in all of the PG's justifies that color as evidence for different PG's isn't enough. However, Pink guy is pink and has no eyes. This separates Pink Guy from Purple Guy. The fact that they both have a badge and this is the only time they have a badge on clearly shows they both are the same person. Plus, they both have eyes.

On one hand, I applaud you for your considerable consideration of detail. On the other hand, who else could it be? We know this guy can't be William Afton, as he has been well established as the Pink Guy. (We originally thought he was Purple Guy, but that isn't right ) And I guess he could be just some random guy, but that would be really lame. Scott wouldn't just do that to us, right? (That being said, he probably would.) Therefore, that leaves only one option. Michael Afton.

That's the same as saying “The Bonnie dude is Phone Guy” or “The Freddy guy is Phone Dude”. It's perfectly fine for there to be new characters in the series. Even if it is Michael, the fact that PG is in that dark room, plus his already purple color, would show that dark purple color. SAVETHEM, on the other hand, William is lighter as the building is already somewhat lit.

Look, Purple Guy(or Vincent to be specific) is actually Springtrap! Okay!? This kind of issue is driving me crazy! BTW, either Foxy OR Fredbear caused that Bite during Shaun's(or Crying Child's)birthday, in which killed him. The reason is that in one of the FNAF4 endings, you'll soon see Shaun vanish and hear a heart monitor flatlining which means he was dead at that point, in which his soul soon became the entity known as Nightmare. So that should clear things up right there…



…for now…

First off, it's either William or Michael (PG 1 or PG 2). There is no Vincent. And it's Michael that's Springtrap. We did not say that he isn't? Also, from your own statement it had to be Fredbear.

Vincent is Purple Guy's REAL first name! OK!? Look it up on the FNAF Wikia on Fandom if you don't believe me.

Wikias can be edited by anyone. Purple Guy is called William Afton in the book, and because there his son Michael Afton in SL, we can assume that William's first name also comes from the book.

GAMERSHOP wrote:

fnaf

MKMasta wrote:

S

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

MKMasta wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

MKMasta wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

MKMasta wrote:

Foxyuk wrote:

puppygirlroxatart02 wrote:

Ohailo everybody, it's me PPG. I have a couple theories about FNAF and FNAF 2 that I'm wondering if anyone else has thought about and come to the same conclusion as me.

First: Who was the victim of the Bite of ‘87????

Since it is not mentioned in the second game at all, the first conclusion that you must come to is that the Bite of ’87 has not happened yet. The check that you receive is dated 11-13-1987, meaning that since the Bite has not happened yet, it must have happened some time within the next two months. Along with the check, you receive a notice saying that Freddy Fazbear's Pizza Place is closing. It can't have happened while the restaurant was closed, now could it? That means that it would've had to happen at the end of the week that you were there. On Night Four of the second game, Phone Guy mentions that the animatronic's facial recognition systems aren't working right, and they are acting more hostile towards employees. On Night Six, you are asked to do one more job, a birthday party, staying near the animatronics so that they don't hurt anybody. After that is when the restaurant closes. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!!!!!!!! When you put all of the clues together, you are able to figure out that you, Jeremy Fitzgerald, the character/night guard that you play in FNAF 2, is the victim of the Bite of '87.

It actually isn't. Purple Guy killed 5 children according to the FNAF lore, which started the series. The 5 dead children absorbed their souls into the animatronics, that lead to the Bite of ‘87. (thought it was ’83, but clearly mistaken.) Thus, that means Purple Guy, was TRULY behind it according to my online research. So how 'bout that? Case TRULY closed!

We are looking for the animatronic responsible. It's fairly obvious that PG stuffed them into the suits. But if the Bite of 87' (Yes, not 83) in 4 is in fact the Bite of 87', then PG killing the kids had nothing to do with it.

If you think it was 83, let me ask you this. How can there be a Mangle toy? It cannot be the toy that Mangle was based off of, as Phone Guy heavily implies that Mangle's gimmick was just a quick solution to a problem they had. Nor could it just be a broken Toy Foxy toy, as the toy has 2 endoskeleton heads.

To be honest, there's no real evidence that FNAF2 ever happened. I mean, think about it. the FNAF2 phone calls reference the animatronics there, despite being proven to be training tapes in FNAF3. Therefore, these FNAF2 calls must happen after the Crying Child's incident at the original location. Besides, it explains the 2-headed mangle you brought up. I don't care HOW you redesigned Foxy; NO ONE planned it to have 2 heads! Finally, it explains Scott Cawthon's hint back from FNAF4: “In the FNAF4 mini game, why would the tiny toy chica be missing her beak?”
And this led me to another revelation. “What is seen in the shadows is easily misunderstood in the mind of a child.” Originally, I assumed it referred to the Purple Man easter egg from FNAF4, and it may. But now that we know that Pink Guy and Purple Guy are different people, it makes even more sense in another light. The dead children are just that– children. In the destruction of their animatronic bodies, they misenterpreted the actions of Michael to be hostile, and thus forced him into the Spring Bonnie suit.
Hope that clears things up.
(Rest of the games are real life though)

FNAF 3, anyone? Remember the box with the toys and all that? Yep, FNAF 2 was real. And you gave no sufficient evidence that FNAF 2 isn't real. I actually have no clue what you are talking about. Please try to be specific. Also, that was my entire point about Mangle, no one planned it to have 2 heads so the toy must've been present after FFP reopened, which therefore makes FNAF 4 in 1987.

*sighs laconically* FNAF4 can't be in 1987. Know why? We all know SL happens in between FNAf4 and FNAF2. Well, the paycheck for FNAF2 is in late 1987, and if what we see in FNAF4 is also in 1987, then SL must happen in an incredibly short time period. Besides, the newspaper at the beginning of FNAF2 says, “Vintage pizzeria given new life!” If there was less than a year's gap in between FNAF4 and FNAF2, it wouldn't be called “vintage”, now would it?

Excuse me, but I don't see any proof that SL is inbetween 2 and 4

We know that Pink Guy and Purple Guy are different people now, correct? We only see Pink Guy at the original locations of Fredbear's (Give cake to the children) and the original FFP (Foxy go go go), the one with the springlock suits. Now, Purple Guy (Michael) makes his debut in the FNAF2 location (Save them), and never appears before that. The SL custom nights show us that Michael become this Purple Man in the aftermath of being scooped. Therefore, SL must happen before FNAF2, but after FNAF4, where Mike is still in that blasted Foxy mask.

Except the fact that the PG in 4 and 2 (SAVETHEM) are the same person, as they both have a badge. So if it is Michael, 87 makes sense as it takes place before. Or, if it is William, it still makes sense, as it could take place anytime around then.

Well, there's one problem that you haven't considered. Heck, I didn't consider it until just now.
Michael is NOT the purple man in the shadows for that easter egg. Their heights don't add up. The Atari color of shadows in these minigames is the exact shade of purple we see on that man, but a slightly different shade of purple four our friend Michael.
And while I was thinking about this, something hit me. Have we seen the purple man kill anyone? No. We've seen the Pink man kill, but not Purple man.

That is assuming that Michael is the Foxy kid. This guy has dark brown hair, a gray shirt, and gray shoes. Michael has light brown hair, a purple shirt, and brown shoes. Not to mention the skin color. Before you point out how people wear different shirts everyday, both CC and his brother both wear the same shirt everyday. Also, because of the color inconsistencies in all of the PG's justifies that color as evidence for different PG's isn't enough. However, Pink guy is pink and has no eyes. This separates Pink Guy from Purple Guy. The fact that they both have a badge and this is the only time they have a badge on clearly shows they both are the same person. Plus, they both have eyes.

On one hand, I applaud you for your considerable consideration of detail. On the other hand, who else could it be? We know this guy can't be William Afton, as he has been well established as the Pink Guy. (We originally thought he was Purple Guy, but that isn't right ) And I guess he could be just some random guy, but that would be really lame. Scott wouldn't just do that to us, right? (That being said, he probably would.) Therefore, that leaves only one option. Michael Afton.

That's the same as saying “The Bonnie dude is Phone Guy” or “The Freddy guy is Phone Dude”. It's perfectly fine for there to be new characters in the series. Even if it is Michael, the fact that PG is in that dark room, plus his already purple color, would show that dark purple color. SAVETHEM, on the other hand, William is lighter as the building is already somewhat lit.

Look, Purple Guy(or Vincent to be specific) is actually Springtrap! Okay!? This kind of issue is driving me crazy! BTW, either Foxy OR Fredbear caused that Bite during Shaun's(or Crying Child's)birthday, in which killed him. The reason is that in one of the FNAF4 endings, you'll soon see Shaun vanish and hear a heart monitor flatlining which means he was dead at that point, in which his soul soon became the entity known as Nightmare. So that should clear things up right there…



…for now…

First off, it's either William or Michael (PG 1 or PG 2). There is no Vincent. And it's Michael that's Springtrap. We did not say that he isn't? Also, from your own statement it had to be Fredbear.

Vincent is Purple Guy's REAL first name! OK!? Look it up on the FNAF Wikia on Fandom if you don't believe me.

Wikias can be edited by anyone. Purple Guy is called William Afton in the book, and because there his son Michael Afton in SL, we can assume that William's first name also comes from the book.

Sure. But still, Purple Guy was named Vincent in the FNAF games and was used in some fanfics on DeviantArt!

cs109801 wrote:

Ok, me and three other friends got together, and we think we have solved some mysteries.
First off, my theory about William Afton being the Puppet… well, I was about half-right. We've decided that William is not exactly INSIDE the Puppet. We think that the Puppet has some kind of data that there is some type of CONTROLLER for him that William Afton has for him. If this is impossible, what could be the truth. No one, and I repeat, NO ONE can be that skinny in the first place.
Also, if you believe there's not enough proof, these are THREE OTHER EXPERTS we're talking about here. Also, the controller idea could explain the fact that the white dots for his eyes is the part when he's being controlled.
Scratchingthecode97, this could be my proof for the fact that William is still alive.

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Ok, me and three other friends got together, and we think we have solved some mysteries.
First off, my theory about William Afton being the Puppet… well, I was about half-right. We've decided that William is not exactly INSIDE the Puppet. We think that the Puppet has some kind of data that there is some type of CONTROLLER for him that William Afton has for him. If this is impossible, what could be the truth. No one, and I repeat, NO ONE can be that skinny in the first place.
Also, if you believe there's not enough proof, these are THREE OTHER EXPERTS we're talking about here. Also, the controller idea could explain the fact that the white dots for his eyes is the part when he's being controlled.
Scratchingthecode97, this could be my proof for the fact that William is still alive.

No, you have provided zero evidence or explanation of said evidence in how it means that the Puppet is “controlling William”. I mean, there is no way the Puppet could build any type of controller. Why not possess the dang thing? Also, there is no evidence for William being dead either. This is all just speculation. When you are making a theory, you have to have evidence to support it or it all falls flat. Plus, if there is contradictions to said theory, then it hurts it even more. May I ask, who were these “experts”?

Sorry if that sounded harsh lol

cs109801 wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Ok, me and three other friends got together, and we think we have solved some mysteries.
First off, my theory about William Afton being the Puppet… well, I was about half-right. We've decided that William is not exactly INSIDE the Puppet. We think that the Puppet has some kind of data that there is some type of CONTROLLER for him that William Afton has for him. If this is impossible, what could be the truth. No one, and I repeat, NO ONE can be that skinny in the first place.
Also, if you believe there's not enough proof, these are THREE OTHER EXPERTS we're talking about here. Also, the controller idea could explain the fact that the white dots for his eyes is the part when he's being controlled.
Scratchingthecode97, this could be my proof for the fact that William is still alive.

No, you have provided zero evidence or explanation of said evidence in how it means that the Puppet is “controlling William”. I mean, there is no way the Puppet could build any type of controller. Why not possess the dang thing? Also, there is no evidence for William being dead either. This is all just speculation. When you are making a theory, you have to have evidence to support it or it all falls flat. Plus, if there is contradictions to said theory, then it hurts it even more. May I ask, who were these “experts”?

Sorry if that sounded harsh lol

Ok, first off, I never said the Puppet is controlling William, I'm saying William is controlling the Puppet. William has the controller himself. Secondly, I know William isn't dead. You told me that two times already! And third, the “experts” are just some friends who play and watch FNAF stuff a lot. I might have exaggerated that too much.

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Ok, me and three other friends got together, and we think we have solved some mysteries.
First off, my theory about William Afton being the Puppet… well, I was about half-right. We've decided that William is not exactly INSIDE the Puppet. We think that the Puppet has some kind of data that there is some type of CONTROLLER for him that William Afton has for him. If this is impossible, what could be the truth. No one, and I repeat, NO ONE can be that skinny in the first place.
Also, if you believe there's not enough proof, these are THREE OTHER EXPERTS we're talking about here. Also, the controller idea could explain the fact that the white dots for his eyes is the part when he's being controlled.
Scratchingthecode97, this could be my proof for the fact that William is still alive.

No, you have provided zero evidence or explanation of said evidence in how it means that the Puppet is “controlling William”. I mean, there is no way the Puppet could build any type of controller. Why not possess the dang thing? Also, there is no evidence for William being dead either. This is all just speculation. When you are making a theory, you have to have evidence to support it or it all falls flat. Plus, if there is contradictions to said theory, then it hurts it even more. May I ask, who were these “experts”?

Sorry if that sounded harsh lol

Ok, first off, I never said the Puppet is controlling William, I'm saying William is controlling the Puppet. William has the controller himself. Secondly, I know William isn't dead. You told me that two times already! And third, the “experts” are just some friends who play and watch FNAF stuff a lot. I might have exaggerated that too much.

First off, either way it isn't supported by evidence. Secondly, you just said this could be for my statement about William being alive. Yeah, he would be alive if he was controlling the Puppet, doesn't support your claim that much. Please give any evidence.

cs109801 wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Ok, me and three other friends got together, and we think we have solved some mysteries.
First off, my theory about William Afton being the Puppet… well, I was about half-right. We've decided that William is not exactly INSIDE the Puppet. We think that the Puppet has some kind of data that there is some type of CONTROLLER for him that William Afton has for him. If this is impossible, what could be the truth. No one, and I repeat, NO ONE can be that skinny in the first place.
Also, if you believe there's not enough proof, these are THREE OTHER EXPERTS we're talking about here. Also, the controller idea could explain the fact that the white dots for his eyes is the part when he's being controlled.
Scratchingthecode97, this could be my proof for the fact that William is still alive.

No, you have provided zero evidence or explanation of said evidence in how it means that the Puppet is “controlling William”. I mean, there is no way the Puppet could build any type of controller. Why not possess the dang thing? Also, there is no evidence for William being dead either. This is all just speculation. When you are making a theory, you have to have evidence to support it or it all falls flat. Plus, if there is contradictions to said theory, then it hurts it even more. May I ask, who were these “experts”?

Sorry if that sounded harsh lol

Ok, first off, I never said the Puppet is controlling William, I'm saying William is controlling the Puppet. William has the controller himself. Secondly, I know William isn't dead. You told me that two times already! And third, the “experts” are just some friends who play and watch FNAF stuff a lot. I might have exaggerated that too much.

First off, either way it isn't supported by evidence. Secondly, you just said this could be for my statement about William being alive. Yeah, he would be alive if he was controlling the Puppet, doesn't support your claim that much. Please give any evidence.

Ummm… ok.
Our evidence is the fact that the strings CAN move all by themselves. By that, I mean rise and fall. This means that the Puppet probably doesn't move all by itself because it can't control the strings by itself, proving that someone else did it with some type of controller or something.
The question is, who did do it? Well, first off we can rule Mike out right away, since we know he's in Springtrap. And we also now it can't be really anyone else (Except William), because we don't have that much evidence to prove it can't be someone else. That means our most likely suspect is William Afton. The evidence for this is the eyes on the Puppet. We already know that PG has those white dots for eyes, so this makes William Afton the controller (See that pun? ).

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Ummm… ok.
Our evidence is the fact that the strings CAN move all by themselves. By that, I mean rise and fall. This means that the Puppet probably doesn't move all by itself because it can't control the strings by itself, proving that someone else did it with some type of controller or something.
The question is, who did do it? Well, first off we can rule Mike out right away, since we know he's in Springtrap. And we also now it can't be really anyone else (Except William), because we don't have that much evidence to prove it can't be someone else. That means our most likely suspect is William Afton. The evidence for this is the eyes on the Puppet. We already know that PG has those white dots for eyes, so this makes William Afton the controller (See that pun? ).

First off, possession is a thing. Secondly, the Puppet is not connected to strings in his jumpscare. Plus, by saying the connection between the Puppet's eyes and William's, you are basically saying that William controls Bonnie (and Withered), Freddy (and Withered), Mangle, the endoskeleton in the backroom + the heads, ect. You get the point. William is not controlling the Puppet.

cs109801 wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Ummm… ok.
Our evidence is the fact that the strings CAN move all by themselves. By that, I mean rise and fall. This means that the Puppet probably doesn't move all by itself because it can't control the strings by itself, proving that someone else did it with some type of controller or something.
The question is, who did do it? Well, first off we can rule Mike out right away, since we know he's in Springtrap. And we also now it can't be really anyone else (Except William), because we don't have that much evidence to prove it can't be someone else. That means our most likely suspect is William Afton. The evidence for this is the eyes on the Puppet. We already know that PG has those white dots for eyes, so this makes William Afton the controller (See that pun? ).

First off, possession is a thing. Secondly, the Puppet is not connected to strings in his jumpscare. Plus, by saying the connection between the Puppet's eyes and William's, you are basically saying that William controls Bonnie (and Withered), Freddy (and Withered), Mangle, the endoskeleton in the backroom + the heads, ect. You get the point. William is not controlling the Puppet.

1. I never said there were strings on the Puppet in his jumpscare.
2. Where are you getting this idea that if this was true, William would control other animatronics as well?
3. Possession can be a thing, I know. But why the Puppet? It makes no sense, but hey, it's just a theory.

cs109801 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Ummm… ok.
Our evidence is the fact that the strings CAN move all by themselves. By that, I mean rise and fall. This means that the Puppet probably doesn't move all by itself because it can't control the strings by itself, proving that someone else did it with some type of controller or something.
The question is, who did do it? Well, first off we can rule Mike out right away, since we know he's in Springtrap. And we also now it can't be really anyone else (Except William), because we don't have that much evidence to prove it can't be someone else. That means our most likely suspect is William Afton. The evidence for this is the eyes on the Puppet. We already know that PG has those white dots for eyes, so this makes William Afton the controller (See that pun? ).

First off, possession is a thing. Secondly, the Puppet is not connected to strings in his jumpscare. Plus, by saying the connection between the Puppet's eyes and William's, you are basically saying that William controls Bonnie (and Withered), Freddy (and Withered), Mangle, the endoskeleton in the backroom + the heads, ect. You get the point. William is not controlling the Puppet.

1. I never said there were strings on the Puppet in his jumpscare.
2. Where are you getting this idea that if this was true, William would control other animatronics as well?
3. Possession can be a thing, I know. But why the Puppet? It makes no sense, but hey, it's just a theory.

Actually, now that I think of it, you could be right on reason 2. William could possibly control them in some way as well after killing all thos children, but he might control the Puppet a bit more.

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

1. I never said there were strings on the Puppet in his jumpscare.
2. Where are you getting this idea that if this was true, William would control other animatronics as well?
3. Possession can be a thing, I know. But why the Puppet? It makes no sense, but hey, it's just a theory.

Actually, now that I think of it, you could be right on reason 2. William could possibly control them in some way as well after killing all thos children, but he might control the Puppet a bit more.

…alright because of the elephant in the room, I'll do 1 first. You literally said that he is controlled by strings, yet he is not. He is possessed, just like all the others.

Reason 2 was not to bring up a new theory, it was to counter yours. You said the Puppet's connection to William is in his eyes, yet so many other characters have black eyes with white pupils it has no significance.

cs109801 wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

1. I never said there were strings on the Puppet in his jumpscare.
2. Where are you getting this idea that if this was true, William would control other animatronics as well?
3. Possession can be a thing, I know. But why the Puppet? It makes no sense, but hey, it's just a theory.

Actually, now that I think of it, you could be right on reason 2. William could possibly control them in some way as well after killing all thos children, but he might control the Puppet a bit more.

…alright because of the elephant in the room, I'll do 1 first. You literally said that he is controlled by strings, yet he is not. He is possessed, just like all the others.

Reason 2 was not to bring up a new theory, it was to counter yours. You said the Puppet's connection to William is in his eyes, yet so many other characters have black eyes with white pupils it has no significance.

Ok, just an FYI, Toy Bonnie never has dark pupils in the game, and neither does Withered Bonnie or Freddy. The only reason why the others do is because they think you are PG, or William Afton, not because they are being posessed. Also, who could possibly posess the Marionette?

cs109801 wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

New theory!!



My froof that the mangle is funtime foxy
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vbzg5nm9OZ0 watch this an you will see mangle in sl on the roof in funtime adatorim








William Afton is the marionette.

I have some good evidence to back me up. If anyone wants me to present it, I'll be more than happy to.

It's impossible. Custom Night's final cutscene shows that William is still alive after FNAF 3.

Do you want to hear my evidence or not? You can't always just jump to conclusions like that.

Foxyuk wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

New theory!!



My froof that the mangle is funtime foxy
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vbzg5nm9OZ0 watch this an you will see mangle in sl on the roof in funtime adatorim








William Afton is the marionette.

I have some good evidence to back me up. If anyone wants me to present it, I'll be more than happy to.

It's impossible. Custom Night's final cutscene shows that William is still alive after FNAF 3.

Do you want to hear my evidence or not? You can't always just jump to conclusions like that.