Who is really Purple Guy? FNAF Theory

[nathant999]

Okay, so I just finished reading The Silver Eyes, and there are a few details that I noticed that were very strange. By "strange," I mean they MESS UP MOST OF THE TIMELINE. At least, they do if we keep looking at them the same way. It's probably not nessesary, but here's a spoiler warning for basically the entire FNAF series, including The Silver Eyes.
SPOILERS

I'll be recapping some information for those who don't know. In the book, it is hinted at several times that a man named William Afton is the Purple Guy. The only thing is, he unequivocally DIES at the end of the book, and also in a way that is in DIRECT conflict with events seen in the games.

In the FNAF 3 minigames, we see Purple Guy dismantle the original 4 animatronics from FNAF 1. The location is also the same as FNAF 1. However, the minigames are taking place long after FNAF 1, because the building is clearly abandoned; the ceiling leaks water, and rats scurry along the floor from time to time. In the night 5 minigame, we see Purple Guy killed inside a springlock suit. Although William Afton dies in the book, also to springlock failure, this time it was in front of all of the main characters, as well as the five animatronics, including Golden Freddy, all of which are still functional. If he died then, it would make it hard for him to also die later, when he dismantles the animatronics. Some suggest that it's because the book is ina different universe from the games, but I think it's because Afton and Purple Guy are two separate people.

First off, what made us think that Afton was purple guy?
-he was behind the Missing Children incident
-he knew how to use springlock suits
-he committed other acts of murder at different points in time.

Let's get the easiest out of the way. He knows how to use the springlocks because he used to wear them when the orignal restaurant was open, and none of his other murders align with events from the games.

But what about the Missing Children incident? Didn't Purple Guy do that?

Well, not nessesarily. We never actually saw it on screen. During the FNAF 2 Foxy minigame, we play as Foxy, running out to greet children. We do this twice, but on the third time, Purple Guy is standing outside Pirate's Cove, and when we get to the room with the children, they are all dead. So, many jumped to the conclusion that this represented the Missing Children incident.

If you really think about it, though, it couldn't represent that particular incident. From the "halucination" newspapers in FNAF 1, we know that the killer led them into the back room of the restaurant, as is further supported by the book. However, the room Foxy runs into is not a back room, but is more likely the main dining area, looking at the position of Pirate's Cove in both the minigame and FNAF 1. So, therefore, Purple Guy didn't kill the five children that possessed the FNAF 1 animatronics. William Afton did that. That would be that, except there's one more thing that could debunk this theory.

If Afton dies in the Golden Bonnie suit, it'd be hard to also have Purple Guy die in it too. That is, assuming there is only one Golden Bonnie suit. From the FNAF 4 minigame (I believe it is before night 3) where you first find yourself in Fredbear's Family Diner, we can see that there are two of each suit: one of each on the stage, the other Fredbear suit on the employee that blocks your exit, and the other Spring Bonnie suit that we see Purple Guy putting someone into.

Another thing that lets us know that Afton is not Purple Guy is the fact that he is not purple. Let me explain.

The cutscenes from Sister Location's custom night show the Purple Guy, the one who was scooped at the end of Sister Location, literally turning purple from the decay of his skin. We know it was the player because we see Ennard "jump" out of them in the last cutscene before the Golden Freddy mode cutscene. In the book, despite the fact that it takes place after Sister Location, Afton is not described as looking purple.


However, there are still a few unanswered questions.

-Which one of them is Springtrap?
-What happened to the other Fredbear suit (the non-Golden Freddy one)?
-Do we play as Afton or Purple Guy in Sister Location?
-Who really IS Purple Guy?

First of all, let's start with Sister Location. The evidence towards it being Afton is as follows:
-Afton's name is mentioned in the opening cutscene
-Various connections can be drawn between Afton's daughter and the girl who was killed by Baby
-The Sister Location facility is physically connected to Afton's house

Starting from the top, Afton's name being mentioned means nothing, due to the context in which it is being used. The last two assume that Afton is Purple Guy, which we concluded is not true. Also, the girl assumed to be Purple Guy's daughter and the girl who was killed by Baby are actually pretty different in appearance, as they have different hair colors, hair styles, and skin tones. The only common detail is the green eyes, which could just be a coincidence.

The evidence for Purple Guy is pretty much the same as the two last ones for Afton, except this time they hold up better. Even if the two green-eyed girls are different, the last detail is solid. Also, as we stated above, the custom night cutscenes show us that the skin of the person who was scooped in the main games LITERALLY turns purple, meaning that the player is Purple Guy. If you don't know what I mean, watch the Game Theorists' videos on FNAF 4/SL(pre-launch), they cover some of this information in greater detail.

Now, this also answers which one is Springtrap, since the Golden Freddy mode cutscene is probably being spoken by Springtrap, and is definitely spoken by the person we play as in Sister Location. Since we most likely play as Purple Guy and not Afton, that means that Purple Guy is the one that became Springtrap.

Sister Location also holds a partial answer for another question; the other Fredbear suit. The first one became Golden Freddy, and I believe the second one is the one you are in during night 4 ofSister Location.

The suit we are in on night 4 is wierd in that it IS a springlock suit, but it also has faceplates, unlike Golden Freddy and Golden Bonnie. I believe that this specific suit was an experimental one, and was the first to get faceplate technology. We know that there were more springlock suits that were never used from the book, and this one could have been made to test the new idea of plastic-covered animatronics with faceplates, before Sister Location. Now, we don't know what happened to it afterwards, which is why I said it was only a partial answer.

Now, the final question. Who is Purple Guy?

Well, assuming Purple Guy is the one speaking during the Sister Location Golden Freddy mode cutscene, we know that his name is Michael. There are two Michaels in the series; the child that possessed Golden Freddy, and Mike Shmidt. I doubt the Golden Freddy Michael is the one talking, and we know so little about Mike Shmidt that it could be possible. Also, Mike is fired for, among other reasons, "tampering with the animatronics." We know Purple Guy knows things about the animatronics, making it entirely reasonable that he would know enough to be able to tamper with them without breaking them. However, why would Purple Guy get a job at the FNAF 1 location? Also, why would he come back if he knew the danger? What is Mike Shmidt's prior involvement with the company?

Well, he could have gotten a job and kept it because he wanted to kill more children. We don't know very much about what happens at the restaurant besides what happens during Mike's shifts, but since Purple Guy has a history of violent acts against children, it is entirely possible that he wanted to kill more children, but would have to work there to pull it off. And, that last question will be answered with the same answer as this question I am about to ask.

Who is Mike's father? In the SL cutscene, he adresses his father. Who could that be?

What if Mike's father was the Phone Guy? It would explain his history with the company, and why he would need to be "found." Phone Guy does die, but he is killed by the animatronics, who kill by stuffing their victims inside empty suits. If Phone Guy was shoved into a suit, he could have possessed it, but Mike doesn't realize this until later, when he comes back to find his father. But, seeing the animatronics moving around, he decides that he needs to dismantle them so he can find his father uninterrupted. However, he fails, and the spirits of the children either he or his father killed chase him into the suit that he would wear for the rest of eternity. However, he possesses the animatronic suit, wanting to continue his search for his father. And, as the place is set on fire, he finds the perfect opportunity to escape and continue his search to find his father once again.

Okay, that took a while to comeup with and write, so I really hope I didn't miss much. Please tell me if I did, because even one tiny detail could debunk everything I just theorized, and I need to know if anything contradicts this theory.

[nathant999]

How about we ask

[GhostMami]

Publicado originalmente por nathant999:

See above

The names and ideas are coincidental.
The names and ideas are coincidental.
The names and ideas are coincidental.
The names and ideas are coincidental.

[nathant999]

How about we ask him what he meant?

[Metbert]

Publicado originalmente por FuntimeCharlie:

Publicado originalmente por Metbert:

I red it all ... and if we want to be tecnical it he says some people tend to re-use names ... but that sentence can have many meanings and can be easily refered to that old book.

Conclusion: We are not Scott... so we can't be sure about what he meant with that sentence .... so sorry but isn't a very strong point.. is only your interpretation.

he says even though this sounds related. It's not. The names and ideas are coincidental. that means they are not the same person

He said the names of FNaF?

No he says the name in general... in a post that tried to find relations between an old book of Scott and FNaF.... in my opinion he referred to that connection between old book and games.

Like I said you interpretated that sentence in that way, like other can interpretate it in another way.

Or Scott will arrive here to tell us what he meant or this discussion will be endless... like the endless number of interpretation that it can have.

[nathant999]

Metbert? What did you really mean?

[nathant999]

Nevermind

[Metbert]

Publicado originalmente por nathant999:

Metbert? What did you really mean?

That post meant only that there wasn't a connection between that old book and FNaF... and an observation of Scott(my opinion). Then people are able to interpretate his sentence in all the way you want.

Without Scott's clarification one opinion as the same value of all the other.

[nathant999]

I still don't understand why FuntimeCharlie cares about thus so much.

[GhostMami]

Publicado originalmente por Metbert:

Publicado originalmente por FuntimeCharlie:

he says even though this sounds related. It's not. The names and ideas are coincidental. that means they are not the same person

He said the names of FNaF?

No he says the name in general... in a post that tried to find relations between an old book of Scott and FNaF.... inb my opinion he referred to that connection between old book and games.

Like I said you interpretated that sentence in that way, like other can interpretate it in another way.

Or Scott will arrive here to tell us what he meant or this discussion will be endless... like the endless number of interpretation that it can have.

You seem to be lacking Context in Context he is taling about Purple Guy and Mike like Scott said The names and ideas are coincidental. I will agree with you that with out the Context it can be taken a differnt way but in the Context of that post he is saying they are two differnt people

Also side note in the replys of Scotts coment he says this people tend to reuse names in their stories. So even though it may seem like it was intentional, it really wasn't.

[nathant999]

He was talking about the context too. The context was his old book.

[nathant999]

The one from before FNAF.

[Metbert]

Publicado originalmente por FuntimeCharlie:

Publicado originalmente por Metbert:

He said the names of FNaF?

No he says the name in general... in a post that tried to find relations between an old book of Scott and FNaF.... inb my opinion he referred to that connection between old book and games.

Like I said you interpretated that sentence in that way, like other can interpretate it in another way.

Or Scott will arrive here to tell us what he meant or this discussion will be endless... like the endless number of interpretation that it can have.

You seem to be lacking Context in Context he is taling about Purple Guy and Mike like Scott said The names and ideas are coincidental. I will agree with you that with out the Context it can be taken a differnt way but in the Context of that post he is saying they are two differnt people

Well te context isn't only that one ... the context was also about the name of an old book somehow connected with FNaF.

Scott don't said precisly about which context ... so ... well .... like I said we need Scott's answer or we can continue this debate for the eternity.

[JW12345 (Exotic Butters):]

10/10 theory but William Michael and Dave are all the same person purple guy

[nathant999]

JW the theory also states that afton is not purple guy

[GhostMami]

Publicado originalmente por JW12345 (Exotic Butters)::

10/10 theory but William Michael and Dave are all the same person purple guy

YA No