Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

chachi811 wrote:

I wonder who the owner was after fnaf 2. If William Afton AKA the purple guy was killed in the suit, who took over fazber's…

William Afton is not the Purple Guy. He's the other man in FNAF 2 minigames known as “Pink Guy”, or The Killer, so someone else went in the Spring Bonnie suit as seen in the FNAF 3 minigames.

Well… unless Scott pulls a Scott on us and it's actually Henry the whole time, like I have theorized in the past.

Well, it could be Henry, but two things counter that. First, everyone seems to forget that the books are nott all fully canon in a way. Second, even if the books were fully canon, we would see that there is next to no evidence that Henry killed anybody or if he's a Purple Guy or Pink Guy in general. But, there is evidence in the books that William is a potential killer, and it's because of the Spring Bonnie costume he has. So with this evidence, we can prove that Henry isn't a killer like Pink Guy. Case closed.

You said yourself that the books aren't fully canon. Therefore, we can't prove that William actually has the Spring Bonnie suit. Secondly, isn't it odd that this is a line?

Circus Baby wrote:

I don't recognize you… You are new.

If William built these robots, then why wouldn't Baby recognize Michael if he was William's son?
Because he MIGHT NOT BE William's son.
Now, I know @Scratchingthecode will probably “boop” me for saying that. And it may be valid. But at this point in time, we just don't know yet.
Secondly, there is NO DESCRIPTION WHATSOEVER for William Afton ever producing offspring. However, we know for a FACT that Henry has one daughter and one or more sons- which is exactly the case for CC'S family; one father, one daughter, and one or more sons. Besides, Henry is the creator of these animatronics. William just sells them to various companies. Therefore, William wouldn't have a huge hand in the coding of the robots, and thus Henry, not William, must have coded the precise murder section of code as described to us by Baby. This still makes him a killer, just not up front and center like Pink Guy.

Michael's dialogue literally starts out with “Father, it's me, Michael.” And the boop. It's pretty much confirmed. Plus, like you pointed out the books aren't fully “canon” to the games. So we don't have any evidence that Henry even exists in the games. The final cherry on top, if Henry coded the “killer code” then why would the workers go right to Afton when asking about those “design choices”?

You bring up some interesting points, certainly. To counter your first point, you're making an assumption that this MUST be William's son. Without the “Boop”, there is no way of telling who the father is. To counter your second point, the fact that William, Michael, AND pigtail girl all exist in this universe heavily implies that everyone else is. (On the other hand, it's exactly that: an implication.) Thirdly, William controls selling the animatronics. The workers probably wouldn't know how to contact Henry directly, but since Mr. Afton has probably worked with the workmen before when selling the animatronics, they would call him instead. This would also explain another thing: why William has no idea about the “Design choices” that were made for these robots besides the positive ones. It's because it was all he was told about.

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

chachi811 wrote:

I wonder who the owner was after fnaf 2. If William Afton AKA the purple guy was killed in the suit, who took over fazber's…

William Afton is not the Purple Guy. He's the other man in FNAF 2 minigames known as “Pink Guy”, or The Killer, so someone else went in the Spring Bonnie suit as seen in the FNAF 3 minigames.

Well… unless Scott pulls a Scott on us and it's actually Henry the whole time, like I have theorized in the past.

Well, it could be Henry, but two things counter that. First, everyone seems to forget that the books are nott all fully canon in a way. Second, even if the books were fully canon, we would see that there is next to no evidence that Henry killed anybody or if he's a Purple Guy or Pink Guy in general. But, there is evidence in the books that William is a potential killer, and it's because of the Spring Bonnie costume he has. So with this evidence, we can prove that Henry isn't a killer like Pink Guy. Case closed.

You said yourself that the books aren't fully canon. Therefore, we can't prove that William actually has the Spring Bonnie suit. Secondly, isn't it odd that this is a line?

Circus Baby wrote:

I don't recognize you… You are new.

If William built these robots, then why wouldn't Baby recognize Michael if he was William's son?
Because he MIGHT NOT BE William's son.
Now, I know @Scratchingthecode will probably “boop” me for saying that. And it may be valid. But at this point in time, we just don't know yet.
Secondly, there is NO DESCRIPTION WHATSOEVER for William Afton ever producing offspring. However, we know for a FACT that Henry has one daughter and one or more sons- which is exactly the case for CC'S family; one father, one daughter, and one or more sons. Besides, Henry is the creator of these animatronics. William just sells them to various companies. Therefore, William wouldn't have a huge hand in the coding of the robots, and thus Henry, not William, must have coded the precise murder section of code as described to us by Baby. This still makes him a killer, just not up front and center like Pink Guy.

Michael's dialogue literally starts out with “Father, it's me, Michael.” And the boop. It's pretty much confirmed. Plus, like you pointed out the books aren't fully “canon” to the games. So we don't have any evidence that Henry even exists in the games. The final cherry on top, if Henry coded the “killer code” then why would the workers go right to Afton when asking about those “design choices”?

You bring up some interesting points, certainly. To counter your first point, you're making an assumption that this MUST be William's son. Without the “Boop”, there is no way of telling who the father is. To counter your second point, the fact that William, Michael, AND pigtail girl all exist in this universe heavily implies that everyone else is. (On the other hand, it's exactly that: an implication.) Thirdly, William controls selling the animatronics. The workers probably wouldn't know how to contact Henry directly, but since Mr. Afton has probably worked with the workmen before when selling the animatronics, they would call him instead. This would also explain another thing: why William has no idea about the “Design choices” that were made for these robots besides the positive ones. It's because it was all he was told about.

Some points, but it wouldn't be what Scott would do. Remember, we don't know all of what is or what isn't carried over from the books to the games. The only way we know things are crossed over is that it is confirmed in the games. We have no evidence that Henry even exists in the games. We cannot assume that he is carried over. If a killer were asked about the secret killer parts of his robots, he wouldn't say “oh yeah that's just for killing kids”. He probably didn't want to explain himself, so he would avoid it altogether. You said without the boop, avoiding the boop evidence altogether. Who else would be Michael's father? The boop and the fact that William's daughter says, “Isn't this why you are here, to be with me again?” proves that Michael is somewhat related to William's daughter. Remember, the girl is a ghost. She would know that this is Michael.

Would anyone want to work with me on creating an acceptable shadow bonnie theory? Because I already have a decent one in mind.

GUYS!! You're all missing some key details! And it's in the Vlad and Clara TV show!
In the TV show, we have a vampire named Vlad having arguments with his beloved wife Clara. Eventually, they both stop fighting and make up if you get the fake ending. Now, here is where we discover the importance of this one show. Let's begin.
Vlad wears a purple jacket with skull buttons. This must have to do with Purple Guy, and the skulls represent the dead children killed by Pink Guy. Does that make sense?
Also, Clara somehow finds a waay to set their house on fire during the argument. This is kind of like Springtrap/Purple Guy setting Fazbear's Fright on fire, wouldn't you say?

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

chachi811 wrote:

I wonder who the owner was after fnaf 2. If William Afton AKA the purple guy was killed in the suit, who took over fazber's…

William Afton is not the Purple Guy. He's the other man in FNAF 2 minigames known as “Pink Guy”, or The Killer, so someone else went in the Spring Bonnie suit as seen in the FNAF 3 minigames.

Well… unless Scott pulls a Scott on us and it's actually Henry the whole time, like I have theorized in the past.

Well, it could be Henry, but two things counter that. First, everyone seems to forget that the books are nott all fully canon in a way. Second, even if the books were fully canon, we would see that there is next to no evidence that Henry killed anybody or if he's a Purple Guy or Pink Guy in general. But, there is evidence in the books that William is a potential killer, and it's because of the Spring Bonnie costume he has. So with this evidence, we can prove that Henry isn't a killer like Pink Guy. Case closed.

You said yourself that the books aren't fully canon. Therefore, we can't prove that William actually has the Spring Bonnie suit. Secondly, isn't it odd that this is a line?

Circus Baby wrote:

I don't recognize you… You are new.

If William built these robots, then why wouldn't Baby recognize Michael if he was William's son?
Because he MIGHT NOT BE William's son.
Now, I know @Scratchingthecode will probably “boop” me for saying that. And it may be valid. But at this point in time, we just don't know yet.
Secondly, there is NO DESCRIPTION WHATSOEVER for William Afton ever producing offspring. However, we know for a FACT that Henry has one daughter and one or more sons- which is exactly the case for CC'S family; one father, one daughter, and one or more sons. Besides, Henry is the creator of these animatronics. William just sells them to various companies. Therefore, William wouldn't have a huge hand in the coding of the robots, and thus Henry, not William, must have coded the precise murder section of code as described to us by Baby. This still makes him a killer, just not up front and center like Pink Guy.

Michael's dialogue literally starts out with “Father, it's me, Michael.” And the boop. It's pretty much confirmed. Plus, like you pointed out the books aren't fully “canon” to the games. So we don't have any evidence that Henry even exists in the games. The final cherry on top, if Henry coded the “killer code” then why would the workers go right to Afton when asking about those “design choices”?

You bring up some interesting points, certainly. To counter your first point, you're making an assumption that this MUST be William's son. Without the “Boop”, there is no way of telling who the father is. To counter your second point, the fact that William, Michael, AND pigtail girl all exist in this universe heavily implies that everyone else is. (On the other hand, it's exactly that: an implication.) Thirdly, William controls selling the animatronics. The workers probably wouldn't know how to contact Henry directly, but since Mr. Afton has probably worked with the workmen before when selling the animatronics, they would call him instead. This would also explain another thing: why William has no idea about the “Design choices” that were made for these robots besides the positive ones. It's because it was all he was told about.

Some points, but it wouldn't be what Scott would do. Remember, we don't know all of what is or what isn't carried over from the books to the games. The only way we know things are crossed over is that it is confirmed in the games. We have no evidence that Henry even exists in the games. We cannot assume that he is carried over. If a killer were asked about the secret killer parts of his robots, he wouldn't say “oh yeah that's just for killing kids”. He probably didn't want to explain himself, so he would avoid it altogether. You said without the boop, avoiding the boop evidence altogether. Who else would be Michael's father? The boop and the fact that William's daughter says, “Isn't this why you are here, to be with me again?” proves that Michael is somewhat related to William's daughter. Remember, the girl is a ghost. She would know that this is Michael.

That may be true, but you are once again making the assumption that the green-eyed girl HAS to be William's daughter. There is no real evidence within the games for this statement, just that Michael and this girl are brother and sister. Sure, we know that William exists in this universe because of Afton Robotics, but to be honest… that's the only evidence we have.

It is not too small because when you get jumpscared by a minireena, it covers your whole face.

cs477778 wrote:

It is not too small because when you get jumpscared by a minireena, it covers your whole face.

Yeah but the arms are 2 skinny so.

cs477778 wrote:

It is not too small because when you get jumpscared by a minireena, it covers your whole face.

If I may ask, what is “it”?

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

chachi811 wrote:

I wonder who the owner was after fnaf 2. If William Afton AKA the purple guy was killed in the suit, who took over fazber's…

William Afton is not the Purple Guy. He's the other man in FNAF 2 minigames known as “Pink Guy”, or The Killer, so someone else went in the Spring Bonnie suit as seen in the FNAF 3 minigames.

Well… unless Scott pulls a Scott on us and it's actually Henry the whole time, like I have theorized in the past.

Well, it could be Henry, but two things counter that. First, everyone seems to forget that the books are nott all fully canon in a way. Second, even if the books were fully canon, we would see that there is next to no evidence that Henry killed anybody or if he's a Purple Guy or Pink Guy in general. But, there is evidence in the books that William is a potential killer, and it's because of the Spring Bonnie costume he has. So with this evidence, we can prove that Henry isn't a killer like Pink Guy. Case closed.

You said yourself that the books aren't fully canon. Therefore, we can't prove that William actually has the Spring Bonnie suit. Secondly, isn't it odd that this is a line?

Circus Baby wrote:

I don't recognize you… You are new.

If William built these robots, then why wouldn't Baby recognize Michael if he was William's son?
Because he MIGHT NOT BE William's son.
Now, I know @Scratchingthecode will probably “boop” me for saying that. And it may be valid. But at this point in time, we just don't know yet.
Secondly, there is NO DESCRIPTION WHATSOEVER for William Afton ever producing offspring. However, we know for a FACT that Henry has one daughter and one or more sons- which is exactly the case for CC'S family; one father, one daughter, and one or more sons. Besides, Henry is the creator of these animatronics. William just sells them to various companies. Therefore, William wouldn't have a huge hand in the coding of the robots, and thus Henry, not William, must have coded the precise murder section of code as described to us by Baby. This still makes him a killer, just not up front and center like Pink Guy.

Michael's dialogue literally starts out with “Father, it's me, Michael.” And the boop. It's pretty much confirmed. Plus, like you pointed out the books aren't fully “canon” to the games. So we don't have any evidence that Henry even exists in the games. The final cherry on top, if Henry coded the “killer code” then why would the workers go right to Afton when asking about those “design choices”?

You bring up some interesting points, certainly. To counter your first point, you're making an assumption that this MUST be William's son. Without the “Boop”, there is no way of telling who the father is. To counter your second point, the fact that William, Michael, AND pigtail girl all exist in this universe heavily implies that everyone else is. (On the other hand, it's exactly that: an implication.) Thirdly, William controls selling the animatronics. The workers probably wouldn't know how to contact Henry directly, but since Mr. Afton has probably worked with the workmen before when selling the animatronics, they would call him instead. This would also explain another thing: why William has no idea about the “Design choices” that were made for these robots besides the positive ones. It's because it was all he was told about.

Some points, but it wouldn't be what Scott would do. Remember, we don't know all of what is or what isn't carried over from the books to the games. The only way we know things are crossed over is that it is confirmed in the games. We have no evidence that Henry even exists in the games. We cannot assume that he is carried over. If a killer were asked about the secret killer parts of his robots, he wouldn't say “oh yeah that's just for killing kids”. He probably didn't want to explain himself, so he would avoid it altogether. You said without the boop, avoiding the boop evidence altogether. Who else would be Michael's father? The boop and the fact that William's daughter says, “Isn't this why you are here, to be with me again?” proves that Michael is somewhat related to William's daughter. Remember, the girl is a ghost. She would know that this is Michael.

That may be true, but you are once again making the assumption that the green-eyed girl HAS to be William's daughter. There is no real evidence within the games for this statement, just that Michael and this girl are brother and sister. Sure, we know that William exists in this universe because of Afton Robotics, but to be honest… that's the only evidence we have.

Don't take this the wrong way, but stop ignoring the boop. It's 100% evidence that William exists in this universe. I know this because the only way PJ would have known his roles is by getting the info from Scott. Yes this is like the third time I've said it but I'm just supporting my evidence. I made that assumption because that was the only person who could be the father. It makes more sense to assume it is William with the evidence given than to assume it was a person that we don't even know exists in this universe. Michael is the son of William Afton. I'm 99% sure. Again, the boop. The boop shows that the ONLY possible person who could be Michael's father as of right now is William. I mean, with the fact that the girl proves her father is the one who made Baby (and by inferring he made the others too), it shows that her father is the one who had those design choices. No, he didn't just build it and follow a blueprint, because he made it in her daughter's image. Remember, it's Afton Robotics. That very heavily implies it has robots made by Afton. It would be pointless if Scott had William not make the animatronics and name the company “Afton Robotics”. This sinister behavior is surely enough to make Michael say in a voice nowhere near friendly, “I'm going to come find you”. I mean, it was William's machine that killed his sister. Plus Michael is purple. That doesn't mean he is the purple guy, as the fact that the LLC pretty much confirms SL takes place in 1991 or later. The ones before had to be the actual PG. Why would he be purple then, you may ask? It gives him a connection to the actual purple guy, and gives the ghosts a reason to mistake him for their killer. “…but then they thought I was you. Haha.” It matches the FNAF 3 minigame perfectly. Even the fact that he chuckles after that line, just like how he did in the FNAF 3 night 5 minigame. “I should be dead, but I'm not.” If you feel the need to point out that Michael didn't save Baby in the minigame, then you would be right. The dialogue has to be a mix of the FNAF 3 stuffing and going to the sister location. This is because there is no evidence that Baby mistook Michael for William. They just understand that he is new and carries on with it. Because of the way Baby uses the pronoun “her” when she refers to the girl means that they are NOT the same entity. Baby is separate from the girl. For this to make sense, the night 5 incident has to be included. It's not that bad. The fact that FNAF 1 came shortly after SL and closed it's doors at the end of the year, and that the dialogue is coupled with Springtrap after the fire shows that it's likely the dialogue came at least after the closing of the FNAF 1 location. It's more likely it's after the fire though.

Wow. I really hope this does it for you, or you at least consider my evidence. I simultaneously answered how the girl is related to William, explained who Michael is, supported my evidence, and attacked any possible counters I can think of. I even brought up small things like where SL takes place. Anyway, this is probably one of my longest and thorough answers not only by itself, but my biggest answer to the smallest rebuttal.

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

chachi811 wrote:

I wonder who the owner was after fnaf 2. If William Afton AKA the purple guy was killed in the suit, who took over fazber's…

William Afton is not the Purple Guy. He's the other man in FNAF 2 minigames known as “Pink Guy”, or The Killer, so someone else went in the Spring Bonnie suit as seen in the FNAF 3 minigames.

Well… unless Scott pulls a Scott on us and it's actually Henry the whole time, like I have theorized in the past.

Well, it could be Henry, but two things counter that. First, everyone seems to forget that the books are nott all fully canon in a way. Second, even if the books were fully canon, we would see that there is next to no evidence that Henry killed anybody or if he's a Purple Guy or Pink Guy in general. But, there is evidence in the books that William is a potential killer, and it's because of the Spring Bonnie costume he has. So with this evidence, we can prove that Henry isn't a killer like Pink Guy. Case closed.

You said yourself that the books aren't fully canon. Therefore, we can't prove that William actually has the Spring Bonnie suit. Secondly, isn't it odd that this is a line?

Circus Baby wrote:

I don't recognize you… You are new.

If William built these robots, then why wouldn't Baby recognize Michael if he was William's son?
Because he MIGHT NOT BE William's son.
Now, I know @Scratchingthecode will probably “boop” me for saying that. And it may be valid. But at this point in time, we just don't know yet.
Secondly, there is NO DESCRIPTION WHATSOEVER for William Afton ever producing offspring. However, we know for a FACT that Henry has one daughter and one or more sons- which is exactly the case for CC'S family; one father, one daughter, and one or more sons. Besides, Henry is the creator of these animatronics. William just sells them to various companies. Therefore, William wouldn't have a huge hand in the coding of the robots, and thus Henry, not William, must have coded the precise murder section of code as described to us by Baby. This still makes him a killer, just not up front and center like Pink Guy.

Michael's dialogue literally starts out with “Father, it's me, Michael.” And the boop. It's pretty much confirmed. Plus, like you pointed out the books aren't fully “canon” to the games. So we don't have any evidence that Henry even exists in the games. The final cherry on top, if Henry coded the “killer code” then why would the workers go right to Afton when asking about those “design choices”?

You bring up some interesting points, certainly. To counter your first point, you're making an assumption that this MUST be William's son. Without the “Boop”, there is no way of telling who the father is. To counter your second point, the fact that William, Michael, AND pigtail girl all exist in this universe heavily implies that everyone else is. (On the other hand, it's exactly that: an implication.) Thirdly, William controls selling the animatronics. The workers probably wouldn't know how to contact Henry directly, but since Mr. Afton has probably worked with the workmen before when selling the animatronics, they would call him instead. This would also explain another thing: why William has no idea about the “Design choices” that were made for these robots besides the positive ones. It's because it was all he was told about.

Some points, but it wouldn't be what Scott would do. Remember, we don't know all of what is or what isn't carried over from the books to the games. The only way we know things are crossed over is that it is confirmed in the games. We have no evidence that Henry even exists in the games. We cannot assume that he is carried over. If a killer were asked about the secret killer parts of his robots, he wouldn't say “oh yeah that's just for killing kids”. He probably didn't want to explain himself, so he would avoid it altogether. You said without the boop, avoiding the boop evidence altogether. Who else would be Michael's father? The boop and the fact that William's daughter says, “Isn't this why you are here, to be with me again?” proves that Michael is somewhat related to William's daughter. Remember, the girl is a ghost. She would know that this is Michael.

That may be true, but you are once again making the assumption that the green-eyed girl HAS to be William's daughter. There is no real evidence within the games for this statement, just that Michael and this girl are brother and sister. Sure, we know that William exists in this universe because of Afton Robotics, but to be honest… that's the only evidence we have.

Don't take this the wrong way, but stop ignoring the boop. It's 100% evidence that William exists in this universe. I know this because the only way PJ would have known his roles is by getting the info from Scott. Yes this is like the third time I've said it but I'm just supporting my evidence. I made that assumption because that was the only person who could be the father. It makes more sense to assume it is William with the evidence given than to assume it was a person that we don't even know exists in this universe. Michael is the son of William Afton. I'm 99% sure. Again, the boop. The boop shows that the ONLY possible person who could be Michael's father as of right now is William. I mean, with the fact that the girl proves her father is the one who made Baby (and by inferring he made the others too), it shows that her father is the one who had those design choices. No, he didn't just build it and follow a blueprint, because he made it in her daughter's image. Remember, it's Afton Robotics. That very heavily implies it has robots made by Afton. It would be pointless if Scott had William not make the animatronics and name the company “Afton Robotics”. This sinister behavior is surely enough to make Michael say in a voice nowhere near friendly, “I'm going to come find you”. I mean, it was William's machine that killed his sister. Plus Michael is purple. That doesn't mean he is the purple guy, as the fact that the LLC pretty much confirms SL takes place in 1991 or later. The ones before had to be the actual PG. Why would he be purple then, you may ask? It gives him a connection to the actual purple guy, and gives the ghosts a reason to mistake him for their killer. “…but then they thought I was you. Haha.” It matches the FNAF 3 minigame perfectly. Even the fact that he chuckles after that line, just like how he did in the FNAF 3 night 5 minigame. “I should be dead, but I'm not.” If you feel the need to point out that Michael didn't save Baby in the minigame, then you would be right. The dialogue has to be a mix of the FNAF 3 stuffing and going to the sister location. This is because there is no evidence that Baby mistook Michael for William. They just understand that he is new and carries on with it. For this to make sense, the night 5 incident has to be included. It's not that bad. The fact that FNAF 1 came shortly after SL and closed it's doors at the end of the year, and that the dialogue is coupled with Springtrap after the fire shows that it's likely the dialogue came at least after the closing of the FNAF 1 location. It's more likely it's after the fire though.

Wow. I really hope this does it for you, or you at least consider my evidence. I simultaneously answered how the girl is related to William, explained who Michael is, supported my evidence, and attacked any possible counters I can think of. I even brought up small things like where SL takes place. Anyway, this is probably one of my longest and thorough answers not only by itself, but my biggest answer to the smallest rebuttal.

Don't forget, the girl in between nights in SL says stuff like "Daddy, why won't you let me play with her?", and later on, you find out that this is the same girl in the minigame and goes to possess Circus Baby, making this the daughter of William Afton since this is the daughter he had with the evidence given.

Was scratch down for maintenance for you guys, too?

What came first, ranch, or cool ranch?

cs109801 wrote:

Was scratch down for maintenance for you guys, too?

yeah, at first i thought scratch was just being difficult, because when i don't have a good internet connection scratch tells me it's down for maintenance. but then i saw the twitter post

computer_tron wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Was scratch down for maintenance for you guys, too?

yeah, at first i thought scratch was just being difficult, because when i don't have a good internet connection scratch tells me it's down for maintenance. but then i saw the twitter post

It was down for maintenance for like, two to three hours for me, and when I found that out, I was like, “That's not normal.” Anyway, all that matters now is that it's up and running again, and we can use it, so whatever.

BIGdaddy696 wrote:

What came first, ranch, or cool ranch?

Obviously, ranch most likely came first because they would have to base cool ranch off of ranch. Also we need to try to stay more serious on this topic, am I rright, guys?

cs109801 wrote:

BIGdaddy696 wrote:

What came first, ranch, or cool ranch?

Obviously, ranch most likely came first because they would have to base cool ranch off of ranch. Also we need to try to stay more serious on this topic, am I rright, guys?

Yeah

Foxyuk wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

BIGdaddy696 wrote:

What came first, ranch, or cool ranch?

Obviously, ranch most likely came first because they would have to base cool ranch off of ranch. Also we need to try to stay more serious on this topic, am I rright, guys?

Yeah

Play! https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/116544880/ need flash.

S U B H U M A N

DEHUMANIZE YOURSELF AND FACE TO BLOODSHED

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

Scratchingthecode97 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

Nextor wrote:

cs109801 wrote:

chachi811 wrote:

I wonder who the owner was after fnaf 2. If William Afton AKA the purple guy was killed in the suit, who took over fazber's…

William Afton is not the Purple Guy. He's the other man in FNAF 2 minigames known as “Pink Guy”, or The Killer, so someone else went in the Spring Bonnie suit as seen in the FNAF 3 minigames.

Well… unless Scott pulls a Scott on us and it's actually Henry the whole time, like I have theorized in the past.

Well, it could be Henry, but two things counter that. First, everyone seems to forget that the books are nott all fully canon in a way. Second, even if the books were fully canon, we would see that there is next to no evidence that Henry killed anybody or if he's a Purple Guy or Pink Guy in general. But, there is evidence in the books that William is a potential killer, and it's because of the Spring Bonnie costume he has. So with this evidence, we can prove that Henry isn't a killer like Pink Guy. Case closed.

You said yourself that the books aren't fully canon. Therefore, we can't prove that William actually has the Spring Bonnie suit. Secondly, isn't it odd that this is a line?

Circus Baby wrote:

I don't recognize you… You are new.

If William built these robots, then why wouldn't Baby recognize Michael if he was William's son?
Because he MIGHT NOT BE William's son.
Now, I know @Scratchingthecode will probably “boop” me for saying that. And it may be valid. But at this point in time, we just don't know yet.
Secondly, there is NO DESCRIPTION WHATSOEVER for William Afton ever producing offspring. However, we know for a FACT that Henry has one daughter and one or more sons- which is exactly the case for CC'S family; one father, one daughter, and one or more sons. Besides, Henry is the creator of these animatronics. William just sells them to various companies. Therefore, William wouldn't have a huge hand in the coding of the robots, and thus Henry, not William, must have coded the precise murder section of code as described to us by Baby. This still makes him a killer, just not up front and center like Pink Guy.

Michael's dialogue literally starts out with “Father, it's me, Michael.” And the boop. It's pretty much confirmed. Plus, like you pointed out the books aren't fully “canon” to the games. So we don't have any evidence that Henry even exists in the games. The final cherry on top, if Henry coded the “killer code” then why would the workers go right to Afton when asking about those “design choices”?

You bring up some interesting points, certainly. To counter your first point, you're making an assumption that this MUST be William's son. Without the “Boop”, there is no way of telling who the father is. To counter your second point, the fact that William, Michael, AND pigtail girl all exist in this universe heavily implies that everyone else is. (On the other hand, it's exactly that: an implication.) Thirdly, William controls selling the animatronics. The workers probably wouldn't know how to contact Henry directly, but since Mr. Afton has probably worked with the workmen before when selling the animatronics, they would call him instead. This would also explain another thing: why William has no idea about the “Design choices” that were made for these robots besides the positive ones. It's because it was all he was told about.

Some points, but it wouldn't be what Scott would do. Remember, we don't know all of what is or what isn't carried over from the books to the games. The only way we know things are crossed over is that it is confirmed in the games. We have no evidence that Henry even exists in the games. We cannot assume that he is carried over. If a killer were asked about the secret killer parts of his robots, he wouldn't say “oh yeah that's just for killing kids”. He probably didn't want to explain himself, so he would avoid it altogether. You said without the boop, avoiding the boop evidence altogether. Who else would be Michael's father? The boop and the fact that William's daughter says, “Isn't this why you are here, to be with me again?” proves that Michael is somewhat related to William's daughter. Remember, the girl is a ghost. She would know that this is Michael.

That may be true, but you are once again making the assumption that the green-eyed girl HAS to be William's daughter. There is no real evidence within the games for this statement, just that Michael and this girl are brother and sister. Sure, we know that William exists in this universe because of Afton Robotics, but to be honest… that's the only evidence we have.

Don't take this the wrong way, but stop ignoring the boop. It's 100% evidence that William exists in this universe. I know this because the only way PJ would have known his roles is by getting the info from Scott. Yes this is like the third time I've said it but I'm just supporting my evidence. I made that assumption because that was the only person who could be the father. It makes more sense to assume it is William with the evidence given than to assume it was a person that we don't even know exists in this universe. Michael is the son of William Afton. I'm 99% sure. Again, the boop. The boop shows that the ONLY possible person who could be Michael's father as of right now is William. I mean, with the fact that the girl proves her father is the one who made Baby (and by inferring he made the others too), it shows that her father is the one who had those design choices. No, he didn't just build it and follow a blueprint, because he made it in her daughter's image. Remember, it's Afton Robotics. That very heavily implies it has robots made by Afton. It would be pointless if Scott had William not make the animatronics and name the company “Afton Robotics”. This sinister behavior is surely enough to make Michael say in a voice nowhere near friendly, “I'm going to come find you”. I mean, it was William's machine that killed his sister. Plus Michael is purple. That doesn't mean he is the purple guy, as the fact that the LLC pretty much confirms SL takes place in 1991 or later. The ones before had to be the actual PG. Why would he be purple then, you may ask? It gives him a connection to the actual purple guy, and gives the ghosts a reason to mistake him for their killer. “…but then they thought I was you. Haha.” It matches the FNAF 3 minigame perfectly. Even the fact that he chuckles after that line, just like how he did in the FNAF 3 night 5 minigame. “I should be dead, but I'm not.” If you feel the need to point out that Michael didn't save Baby in the minigame, then you would be right. The dialogue has to be a mix of the FNAF 3 stuffing and going to the sister location. This is because there is no evidence that Baby mistook Michael for William. They just understand that he is new and carries on with it. Because of the way Baby uses the pronoun “her” when she refers to the girl means that they are NOT the same entity. Baby is separate from the girl. For this to make sense, the night 5 incident has to be included. It's not that bad. The fact that FNAF 1 came shortly after SL and closed it's doors at the end of the year, and that the dialogue is coupled with Springtrap after the fire shows that it's likely the dialogue came at least after the closing of the FNAF 1 location. It's more likely it's after the fire though.
Wow. I really hope this does it for you, or you at least consider my evidence. I simultaneously answered how the girl is related to William, explained who Michael is, supported my evidence, and attacked any possible counters I can think of. I even brought up small things like where SL takes place. Anyway, this is probably one of my longest and thorough answers not only by itself, but my biggest answer to the smallest rebuttal.

First off, I'm not saying that William Afton doesn't exist in this universe. That's just dumb. Secondly, I thought we established that SL occurred immediately after FNAF4, in 1983 (I could be wrong). And you say it yourself that William is the only person who can be Michael's father as of now. And this is a recurring pattern in the FNAF universe: every theory we make in one game is refuted in the next. Until the series ends, we have no idea what's true and what's not. For example, in FNAF2 we all thought that Purple Guy was Phone guy. FNAF3 threw that out of the window because we thought PG was dead from the Spring Bonnie suit. Similarly, we made a bunch of theories that FNAF1 was a guilt dream back when it was the only game. FNAF2 derailed everything we thought we knew. Some of us thought FNAF4 was a dream, until SL showed up and ruined that too. So let's take a step back. You may have heard of PewDiePie being convicted of anti-semitism because people took his videos out of context. It was invalid and messed up the facts. One could make the analysis that FNAF is teaching us to avoid such things… with dead children and killer robots. FNAF teaches us not to trust what we see without making background checks and accumulating all the evidence.
With this philosophy in mind, I think I'm going to take a break from theorizing. I'm going to wait around until another few games come out, make some theories (MYSELF), and then post them here.
Wow, that got philosophical. But to answer the question at hand, I think there's a lot of evidence on the table, but it's like a Star Wars blaster without a nozzle; we don't have enough support from other games to pinpoint an exact answer yet (I mean future games, not past ones). The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of unsolved mysteries hidden in the games that we still don't understand. Like why Golden Freddy can teleport into the office and crash our game in FNAF1, but clearly can't in FNAF2. Why there's no Funtime Chica in SL (I personally think that it's Yendo, but whatever). We don't even have a completely confirmed timeline yet! Some of us are still asking if FNAF2 happened in 1987 or 1983 (#83ftw). In the end, we just don't know. It's the reason why FNAF is so popular, spawning 400-page-long theory discussions. Our brains have to find the answer, so we piece together what little we have to try to make a coherent theory. But there's just not enough evidence there, and there's plenty of contradicting evidence in the way as well. We'll just have to wait for some more installments and see.