Very Important Quotes from The Silver Eyes that Matpat completely ignored

[Sea Eater]

As many of you probably know, Matpat used lines from The Silver Eyes as evidence for Purple Guy being an animatronic. What he failed to acknowledge though, were the number of lines in the book that represent him as being clearly human, even after his change in appearance.

"Dave stood in the open door, still for a long moment, breathing deeply."

"She took it from him and held it over Dave’s head, letting the small streams of water dribbling from the holes in the tin fall on his face. She aimed for his mouth, and after a few moments, he spluttered, his eyes opening."

"Charlie reluctantly pressed her fingers to his neck to check for a pulse."...."“His pulse is normal,” Charlie reported. She pulled her hand back, more startled than if he’d been dead."

"Lines of sweat began to trickle down from under the mask, a stain darkening the collar of his uniform shirt."

And then of course:

"If you want to be one of them, then be one of them!” She shouted, and she tripped the spring locks. Dave’s eyes widened, and then he began to scream. Charlie jerked her hands free, barely evading the locks as they snapped open and plunged into his neck. She took a step back, watching as Dave crumpled to the ground, still screaming as the costume released. Part by part, the animatronic insides pierced his flesh, ripping up his organs, tearing through his body as if it were not even there. At some point he stopped screaming, but he still writhed on the floor for what felt like long minutes, before he was still."

These lines fall in between and very close to the ones he used as evidence, so I don't understand how he would miss them. It seems likely he just ignored them to make his case.

And these are only the lines I felt to be the most undeniable evidence, there's plenty of other lines that heavily imply that he is human.

[TheWolfman]

Things that Matpat missed:
These Quotes
The fact more people read the books (#1 Bestseller)
SL timeline

The one thing he got right was....











We play as Rick Astley

[Rydi]

Цитата допису Purple Guy:

He can title his videos whatever he wants but that doesn't prove what he desires. His actions don't reflect that desire or else he would pay attention to conflicting evidence. Those titles are like news headlines anyway they're meant to grab attention.

Really I was trying to give Matpat the benefit of the doubt in my post because if this is him genuinely trying to solve fnaf he isn't doing a very good job.

He probably did FNAF 1's theory out of fun, he still loved the game and the lore in his FNAF 2 theory. But after those, it feels like he got bit by the greedy snake and he does come off like he wants to be the one to solve FNAF and it's not just something *I* see in his video titles.

He tried to throw shade on Scott for making the "victim of the bite of '87" (aka fnaf 4 child according to his video) be able to have "nightmares" when science tells us people without frontal lobes don't have them and other arguments; he threw major shade at scott, claiming Scott had rushed the game so much that he had made such scientific mistakes by not taking the time to do research. So Scott had to step in and point him in the right direction, for FNAF 4 was not the victim of the bite of '87 and other people pointed to MatPat that the frontal lobe is not the one that controls fear and nightmares. So from that point on, MatPat just became salty towards Scott. Still trying to solve the lore while throwing major shade at Scott at any given chance, like he did in his rushed, incorrect theory on SL.

Hell, even the theory he posted before the game was out (seriously, trying to solve the game's lore before the game is out... he is desperate to solve FNAF) was better than the one he posted a few days ago.

I think MatPat makes VERY entertaining theories and videos. I love the one he made on Until Dawn, it's priceless, watch it if you can. But too many people looked up to him and believed he'd be the one to solve FNAF, so he tried to live up to their expectations and ended up believing he'd truly be the one to solve FNAF, so now that it's clear he's not solving FNAF, he's getting angry at Scott and the games.

[Rydi]

PS. Many people in these forums also wanted to solve FNAF and they kept ignoring key information and contradicting evidence. Even now, some people still say FNAF 4 is 1987 and features the bite of '87 despite all the evidence against that and the contradictions that theory has. Hell, some people still believe Purple man and Phone guy are the same person and that Purple man died before FNAF 1. So it's not that weird to think MatPat would also be a victim to these contradicting theories and evidence.

[black Harlekin]

I think Matpat does to many things at the same time (game theroies, film theroies, youtube red, streaming etc) so he doesn´t take his time anymore to solve anything.
And i don´t even think he want to solve it anyway, when you look at his therories you will find lose ends with no effort.
He makes this maybe just for the heck of it, for the money or just to ♥♥♥♥♥ around against Scott but not to solve anything.

[Rydi]

Цитата допису Eggs Benedict:

Цитата допису Rydi:

PS. Many people in these forums also wanted to solve FNAF and they kept ignoring key information and contradicting evidence. Even now, some people still say FNAF 4 is 1987 and features the bite of '87 despite all the evidence against that and the contradictions that theory has. Hell, some people still believe Purple man and Phone guy are the same person and that Purple man died before FNAF 1. So it's not that weird to think MatPat would also be a victim to these contradicting theories and evidence.

MatPat and Teddybear87 made out a lot of theorists to be angry and Sister Location is "hard to solve". I find this pretty ridiculous as SL is almost like a separate continuity to FNaF 1-3, and it actually helped solve some of the unsolved mysteries from FNaF 4, so I don't see what MatPat is complaining about.

SL is hard to solve for real. Mainly because it connects with the games but doesn't make sense (it wants to hint that we play as Purple man but that doesn't add up with the story, we play as someone called Mike but it doesn't make sense if it's Mike Schmidt, the friendbear plushie is not haunted but it's impossible that the friendbear in FNAF 4 was just a walkie talkie for he hears Friendbear in the restaurant, where there are NO friendbear plushies and therefore no way to connect with the child, etc.); it also connects to the book but totally twists it (ie. William being the one to build the robots and losing a child, rather than Henry; or how in the books he owned the pizzeria and in the games he's a mere employee...etc.).

So it's hard to piece it together and make sense of what's going on. I don't blame them for thinking it's hard. I blame MatPat for rushing the theory, I think he should have waited some more, let the community figure out more things or find more clues before making a theory. If he had paid attention to what the community was saying, he wouldn't have gone with the "we play as purple man" card, because he'd have realized we do have valid arguments against that being possible.

I'm guessing we'll have another theory in the future once the lore starts clearing and pieces start falling into place.

[Derpcrow]

RIP Matpat.

He did make quality content. (DID)

[TLPenn]

Цитата допису Eggs Benedict:

Цитата допису Rydi:

I'm amazed that he even claimed we played as Afton due to the eyes, when in the book he claims to be the only one who read it, the very title tells you Afton had SILVER eyes lol not purple. Even in the games he has white eyes. So that silly point already threw everything out the window. Even in Springtrap you can see his obvious silver/white eyes https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/04/5c/70/045c700a8020466274c174a9e7843a77.jpg

I think he put the theory video out there too early, there are many things that we don't know yet, we need more time to think and connect the dots. But he rushed it to satisfy the crowd and now the crowd wants to eat him alive lol.

IKR, I also don't get why he needs to split it into parts anyway. Who misses when MatPat ACTUALLY put effort into his theories? (FNaF 1,2,3)

To be honest, I do feel like the theory was a bit rushed, but I think an even bigger problem with it is that so much of it is dedicated to tangents, non-sequidors, and mocking the quality of Silver Eyes and the realism of the series as a whole. Heck, his first THREE MINUTES of the episode were dedicated to him being arrogant and complaintive about how the series is convoluted and unsatisfying to solve (never mind that he's missed/outright ignored details dating back to the third game and beyond), not to mention those segments where he goes on a tangent about the game's realism or about Ennard's non-human eyes potentially giving them away in the normal world or even just making unfair jabs at the Silver Eyes and how he apparently was the only one to finish it based on the Kindle Version (nevermind the fact that the book is in a PHYSICAL VERSION that most people may have gotten instead!), which means that less than ten minutes of a thirteen-minute video are dedicated to the actual theory! The video's just SO WASTEFUL, pessimistic, and mean-spirited!

(But yeah, his theories before FNaF 4 always felt like the better ones, despite some grievences and disagreements I have with his videos on FNaF 3.)

[TLPenn]

Цитата допису Jezza:

Цитата допису Rydi:

SL is hard to solve for real. Mainly because it connects with the games but doesn't make sense (it wants to hint that we play as Purple man but that doesn't add up with the story, we play as someone called Mike but it doesn't make sense if it's Mike Schmidt, the friendbear plushie is not haunted but it's impossible that the friendbear in FNAF 4 was just a walkie talkie for he hears Friendbear in the restaurant, where there are NO friendbear plushies and therefore no way to connect with the child, etc.); it also connects to the book but totally twists it (ie. William being the one to build the robots and losing a child, rather than Henry; or how in the books he owned the pizzeria and in the games he's a mere employee...etc.).

So it's hard to piece it together and make sense of what's going on. I don't blame them for thinking it's hard. I blame MatPat for rushing the theory, I think he should have waited some more, let the community figure out more things or find more clues before making a theory. If he had paid attention to what the community was saying, he wouldn't have gone with the "we play as purple man" card, because he'd have realized we do have valid arguments against that being possible.

I'm guessing we'll have another theory in the future once the lore starts clearing and pieces start falling into place.

I'm probably an idiot for thinking SL is easy to solve, IMO . It seems either Scott has had some inconsistencies with the lore, or the community are missing some important details. Even if MatPat's theory wasn't great, there's one thing I can kind of agree on: maybe the story should have left at FNaF 4. Heck, even FNaF 3 as it had a more satisfying ending with the kids' souls being released rather than our main protagonists' head being chomped of and ending the story there. I admit I even had a complete timeline with just FNaF 1-3.
Quote from Markiplier after getting the Good Ending: "That is the Good Ending right there. I don't think I even want there to be another Five Nights at Freddy's game." - Markiplier 2015.

I'll admit, I too had a complete theory for FNaF after the third game, and even after the fourth; I just never got around to posting any of them because I didn't want to have a theory that didn't cover EVERY game as a game came after both of them respectively. And I'll DEFINITELY agree on the idea that there are things that the community is missing, some of which dates back to the third game!

[Rydi]

Цитата допису Jezza:

Couldn't have said it better myself.

You couldn't have said it butter. ;) exot *gets shot*

[Dani]

Didn't he say he'd explain the blood and stuff in episode 2?