MatPat's Final Timeline Criticism and review (In real time!)

[Doctor Script]

These are loose notes I took while watching the first part of the Final Time Line video. I just want to catalog what all is presented, claimed and argued and what problems we can see with this from a first initial glance.

I apologize in advance if the points are vague or unsupported; I'm just updating the discussion as I come into new points.

DISCLAIMER: I'm looking for MatPat to outright state something of importance regarding the Masks, due to my Phantom List Hypothesis. If I stop updating spontaneously, It likely means I got something I wasn't expecting and I'm doing side research to confirm or refute the results.

Thank you for reading!

---

-UCN/Smash Bros comparison. But he does claim the video is sponsored. Checked description in video for Sponsorship; Confirmed, NordVPN. I'm not familiar with their work, but I don't know the FCC laws well enough to know if this can bury leads in anyway. But just want to point it out.

-He calls out the trend of the Arc Number of 5, technically 6 but there is a seventh. He marks the pattern as 5 standard, 1 lore, and 1 challenge. I agree with this observation, and it reflects in my reading as well. 5 children, 1 puppet, and 1 Victim. I don't think this is the last game by Scott regarding this universe.

-Scott's not a mad genius, we can't solve this story if there aren't patterns he adheres too. Therefore, he adheres to patterns that can be solved backwards.

This is also an glamorized way to build up Scott's Authority, so when he makes a bold claim with no evidence but absurd detail coincidence he can build it up as being part of 'Scott's Master Plan all Along!". Next he probably going to clear himself to cherry pick info he wants to prove his points by claiming he using everything as a resource.

-AH, Mr. Hippo :D

- ... MatPat is acknowledging that there are two drafts of this story. I'm... cautious... He didn't outright state that Cawthon rewrote anything, but he acknowledge it. I don't understand why he would do that, unless he just padding out and giving himself a byline in the case he wants to address conflicting information.

-Never mind. He's still setting up Cawthon as a mad genius.

-Fox of Truth? you misread Faux.

- "A lot of Minute details from literally every element the series has ever released". I'm not even going to call that a Prediction. Of course he's going to cherry pick his fauxing data.

-Don't worry MatPat, My heart can take it. My desk may not.

-"And, of course, there are questions that don't have clean answers, which I will be calling out for you as I go". Well, at least he admits to begging the question. That's new... ish.

-Oh ♥♥♥♥, he's explaining his thought process, this next update may take a second.

-Rule number 1 is that he puts more emphasis on newer data.

Problems with this; it sounds reasonably, but the reason we don't have a rule of thumb or arguement for this is that you can't put emphasis on anything. You have to challenge a null for all perceived outcomes with the observations you make. IF the observations don't pan out a solid clear answer, or two answers are both valid, you can't land on one as true until you get more information.

So, hes using the recent data as more relevant, which gives him the ability to dismiss the previous data. No, you can't... No MatPat, Data is Data. There is no more recent.

The reason this sounds convincing is because he wants Scott to change his mind in his read. I can already tell that there will be a big reveal somewhere down the line that Scott is going back on his previous work, and it's going to magically not be a 'Retcon' for what ever reason he wants it to be.

-Whoa whoa whoa, this is completely contradictory to what he has already established;

IF Scott is a mad genius, who confirmed his theory back in FNAF1 (as stated in MatPat's more recent video), Pointing out the rewrite in between FNAF1 and FNAF2 is a contradiction to this mindset.

-AND wait a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ second, Since when is MatPat acknowledging the seam between FNAF1's writing and FNAF2? Rydi brow beat me to death and back over this existing or not. It's is NOT established or proven fact.

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ MatPat. Stop agreeing with me for the Wrong reasons and posting stupid conclusions over it.

-Rule Number 2 is Adhering to Key Dates and Events.

Welp... if you can argue that they are the dates or events and when they occur logically, I agree. Otherwise, this sounds like you are setting up assertions to give to your audience to brow beat dissenters into submission. I guess time will only tell...

-And he just rattled off that the spring lock suits were sealed at a sister location which happens to be FNAF4, which can't be the true if William Afton is the Killer. William Afton is Sealed away with those suits. Which means he can't be the one to kill the kids in FNAF2, as he is already sealed in 1987.

So much for adhering to dates and events.

-AND THEN HE LITERALLY TALKS ABOUT THE PROBLEM WITH THAT ASSERTION as evidence for his own Rule that he just established!

-Rule 3 is that this isn't a simple linear timeline.

If he talks about ring narratives, I'm going to flip a ♥♥♥♥♥♥' table.

-At ease, tables. He just has to go out of his way to point out that multiple events can occur at different locations. This is probably a rule, just to justify why his timeline is so heavily front loaded with FNAF4 at the beginning. Everything happens before FNAF2 even occurs, so there is a lot of overlap in the beginning.

-MatPat mocks the Scope of the game, that doesn't forebode well for me.

-He's arguing that the puppet is first in all of his games, And I imagine that he is going to recant that statement. I'm betting on Cassidy.

-Yep, he's setting up that someone else died first... Fredbear's wasn't owned by Fazbear's until Henry's Daughter died. They had previous owners. This is how I deducted that the CEO was the Purple Man since back in FNAF3, which has since been confirmed. The CEO was the only one to benefit from killing the puppet. MatPat can NOT logically deduct that anything that happens at a Fazbear Entertainment Location happens before the Puppet's death.

-Jesus, Jr's is NOT the FNAF2 Location. MatPat is the ONLY person that pushes this stupid and random assertion that does nothing for the lore as a whole.

-Getting a beer.

-Okay, so he goes through and explains that William is refused entrance into JR's and establishes that it must be Phone Guy says former employees aren't allowed entrance in the building. A Fair connection, but this does NOTHING to prove a point regarding WHEN FNaF2 opened, and WHEN William killed kids.

-Okay, so Circular reasoning time.

FNaF2 closed due to people being uncomfortable with going to a place where kids died. If so, this must make it the first event in the timeline.

No, not true, and the fact that William is PURPLE in other games and is ORANGE here is the problem. Purple establishes that he works for Fazbear Entertainment, he was fired for the death of Elizabeth between FNAF0 and FNAF2. Therefore, this proves that he is no longer employeed at Fazbears. He is an ex-employee.

The reason that Fazbear's couldn't stay open was that Afton couldn't spin the negative press. JR's may be a nod that he wasn't allowed at the store he helped create (Much like a child refusing the help of a parent as it gets older), but it isn't the FNaF2 location, so it's all irrelevant anyway.

This is a gargling of Non-sequiturs, Circular reasoning, and a host of assertions without sufficient evidence to support them.

-What nonsense is this? From the observation that FNAF2, which took place in 1987, closed due to poor sales (He even proves that it's not kids dying there specifically that causes it to close down. They close, and cite bad sales as the reason, so He doesn't even have his assertion to support him on this), he just... concludes that this had to be the first event. The other events had evidence supporting them being ahead of FNAF2.

...

Does this have something to do with the "Pre-recorded messages nonsense?"

-We can figure out the order of the murders due to ultimate custom night. Color me intrigued, MatPat, I'm betting this is going to provide an in game timeline like FNAF4's walk home did.

-Chica was first, no complaints here, she literally states that she was first and saw everything.

-You can't use the novels to prove the game's lore. Period. Teaspoon of sewage. I also refute that Susie is Chica, but that is beside the point.

-Toy Chica LIES in every cut scene to her culprit. "I Told him that someone ran over his dog in front of my house". The point is that what she is saying is NOT true.

-There is NO evidence of anyone's dead dog being used to lure a child away, if you have problems, let me know, I will refute that argument hard.

-My theory of the games involves the Puppet killing 5 kids, so that they will invite her to their birthday party. That's the super condensed version of it. The reason Cassidy isn't released in the end of UCN is because she doesn't invite the puppet to her party. I predicted this, on the basis that every character is locked in their mask, including Cassidy. Victim (From FNAF4) chooses to invite the puppet and wear the mask of Fredbear. In doing so, he releases everyone. There was only one character that wasn't present; Golden Freddy.

He was forced into the mask in FNAF4, but he chooses to wear it in Happiest Day, if it means everyone's souls are finally put to rest.

Therefore, I have to point out that MatPat is showing that the Puppet is presenting a cake to Cassidy, but not that Cassidy is accepting the cake.

-So, what the ♥♥♥♥ is it MatPat? Is "The One you should not have Killed" Golden Freddy or not? You stated that you were using evidence with more emphasis on later releases, but if Golden Freddy is Cassidy, and IS a little girl, then the consistent use of "Him" should be a clear indicator that you are wrong.

-He conflates the gender idiosyncrasy of his own theory he is presenting, with assertion he pulled out of his backside. Just because Scott said the character should not be readily determined as male or female, does not mean that MatPat has free reign to ignore the conflicted data.

I'm beginning to think MatPat won't signify when he knows there's something amiss in his theory...

-Okay, death coin talk time, some how tied into when Golden Freddy is possessed.

-"There's more Fantasy and Fun where I came From", Seriously, this isn't that hard to pick apart. Fredbear's Family Diner, as it was run and operated, was just a family restaurant with a robot bear. When Afton killed the Puppet to get the store from them, he killed what was wholesome and good about the store to make money. That is Literally what he did. He killed something wholesome and good, to make some money. Fredbear is just pointing out that, IF Afton had not killed The Puppet, the store would still be Fantastic and Fun.

-Yes, MatPat, it is a direct quote from Phone Guy. And Fantasy and Fun were in abundance at Fredbear's without Fazbear's getting involved.

-Wow... just wow... That is some massive Cajones MatPat has have to take a quote from Phone Guy in FNAF1 and Golden Freddy from FNAF6, and just assert that this clearly means that Golden Freddy is from FNAF4 (Where the hell did That come from!?), but dates all the way back to the first pizzeria and the missing children's incident.

What the hell does any of that have to do with ANYTHING!?

-"But there is consistent evidence and logic to back it all up"... I wish you would have present this 'Consistent' evidence to prove your stance... but no. You are already deliberately trying to confuse your audience into compliance... God, i'm only 14 minutes into the video.

-Okay, so MatPat is complaining that there is conflicting evidence. In Logic, we would say that this is an incompatible model. It does not comply with our observations. But I have to point out, due to intellectual integrity that When you are using assertions, it is okay to have conflicting points of data. This doesn't mean that Assertions are good in any case, but simply that when you are first analyzing the data, conflicts are bound to occur. This is the importance of keeping an open mind; You have to entertain all elements of the data, until you find a path that has no clear refutation.

What MatPat should do, before opening this to peer revision on the internet is go back to square one and try to figure out why his data is in conflict with observations. Instead, he is going to go with Sister Location as canon in lieu of FNaF Classic, because of the poor rules he decided to go with in the beginning of the video.

Note taken; The rules are just foreshadowing of problems he needs to engineer himself out of later in the video.

-Okay, so... *Sigh*... This is all well and good cluster ♥♥♥♥ of an exposition dump, but it signifies Nothing.

Basically, he is Citing various elements that are loosely tied to what he is talking about. This allows him to assert things (Like Elizabeth Afton being Victim's sister), without having to actually prove it. And, since he is talking about how the timeline doesn't sync up with his evidence, these assertions go through undetected.

-There is a bigger problem with proving the calls came from FNAF4, The fact that Spring Trap is sealed in a safe room. MatPat is trying to make the timeline seem really messy by using evidence from all over the map and tying them to a time he wants to prove for reasons.

Hell, he states that Elizabeth is supposed to be missing in FNAF4 (Which would be true regardless of 83 or 87), but then conflates that is a point of evidence in conflict with Sister Location's position in the time line. How? He doesn't provide any evidence to cement his focal premise that the FNAF2 location was open that far back.

-Called it, He refers to Rule #1 and simply rides with Sister Location.

-He points out that the Animatronics all look alike, but ignores all the animatronics that don't look like what he is talking about.

This is text book circular reasoning. These animatronics all came from Circus Baby's Pizza World, because they all look alike; They all look alike, because they came from Circus Baby's pizza world. What about Fun Time Foxy? She doesn't look like the others? Well, she doesn't come from Circus Baby's Pizza world then.

-Wait... again, how does Baby's Pizza World being open for one day prove why Victim has night terrors of stomach mouths? I get that means that Elizabeth's death, being on this one day, could have these impacts, but the way it is presented is sloppy and deliberately vague.

- Oh, and it's not proof of validity. These are events that could be connected, but there is no causality presented to support the claims.

-Alright, so the basis of these claims is that FNAF4 should happen after SL0 but before FNAF0. He is pointing out that the Most of the Fun Time animatronics have Red Cheeks, just like Mangle and Nightmarionette, but that they aren't canon because they don't exist at this stage in the story.

I thought this was supposed to clear things up? I'm starting to wonder why it's important to say that Nightmare Mangle and Nightmarionette don't exist in canon, when UCN clearly shows they are? Is this Cherry Picking again? Is he going to use their quotes while refuting their existence?

-Well, that's one way to cherry pick around the point that Spring Trap is sealed away due to the FNAF3 phone calls.

-Oh... OH! I see what the problem is that he is trying to work around.

IF FNaF 4 is in 1983, then the missing children's incident needs to be earlier then that. The puppet isn't featured in FNAF4, so he is taking the lack of evidence as evidence by Absence and trying to work backwards. That's why he is so concerned with 'proving' that the Fazbear's and fredbear's existed before and after FNAF4 in 1983.

Well, the problem is that he is making it way more complicated then it needs to be, and spinning his wheels trying to prove something he can't. Like I stated earlier, Fredbear's had previous owners, and Fazbear's bought them out. If my reasoning panned out an accurate prediction of who Purple Man is, then it stands to reason that my logic was sound in understanding what Scott was setting up. Until proven otherwise, he can't use any Fazbear Entertainment owned location for evidence until the puppet's death.

-Okay, MatPat is finally addressing the fact that he has been using FNaF2's 1987 evidence for his timeline prior to 1983. He's claimed that there is 'An elegant Solution to this' pickle. Is he going to claim the Phone calls are recorded? He's going to claim the phones are recorded, isn't he?

-... I was wrong. He didn't blame the phone calls being per-recorded as evidence to support his claim. He just simply... claims that the store had been opened for years. This smells an awfully lot like begging the question is going to occur soon, though.

-Nope, no no. They are not just 'simply' illusions. Just like Dream Theory only fills an element of the setting, and the proof for Dream theory is strictly proving the games are a work of fiction, You can't just simply use the usage of 'Illusion' in dialog of Nightmare animatronics as proof that they were created by a plot device that functionally doesn't exist in this narrative. Bold faced assertion.

-Victim does NOT want to be at Fredbear's. He is Brought there. This is explictly stated in FNAF4. Victim doesn't run off to Fredbear's, he has to be forced to go there.

-He claims to have the evidence to prove Victim dies, but is still alive and gets scooped but comes back to life in his next episode.

I'm just going to go ahead and say that MatPat has conflated characters. There is no reason to insist that Micheal IS Victim by any evidence or reason the games have to offer. They don't want the same things, they aren't characterized the same way, they don't share traits in any context. The only reason Matpat puts them together is that MatPat wants them to be the same so he can have a Darth Vader/Luke fight.

Now watch for him to project in that secretly, Micheal is a robot, but the living person is not. When is it the robot and when is it the living person? I'm going to guess the switch will be... whenever it's convenient for his theory.

Who wants to take that bet?

-And now we bring it back full circle to the advertisement regarding NordVPN. Strange, I guess he knew he was going to hit #1 trending due to topic alone and figured to cash in on some side hustle.

Well that's it for tonight, I'll condense this into a full critique tomorrow.

[Lord Egg]

İlk olarak Doctor Script tarafından gönderildi:

Because Scott chose to focus on breathing, not atmosphere.

Like, back in the tail end of the FNaF3 era, I was saying that The Puppet had the ability to go into safe rooms because Phone Guy states: "I never liked that puppet thing, it's always thinking... And It can Go Anywhere". Now, if you take this hyper-literally, it means she can go to the moon if she wanted to (Not that I have anything against puppets going to the moon, I'm sure Kermit would have made a great Astronaut). But the point of this bit of dialog is that it demonstrates that she can go somewhere that other animatronics can not go.

When FNAF3 was released, this got clarified for us. The Puppet can go in the safe room, because she doesn't have the same digital map as the other animatronics. In FNaF6, this was confirmed in the Security Puppet Mini-game. She is not bound to a digital map, and explained because Security Puppets are meant to follow lost children. However, this only proves the initial notion.

We can assume anyone that has training to wear a spring lock suit can wear them safely. We have nothing to support that William Afton ever got this training.

We could argue, but not very effectively, that William Afton could have designed the suits and knew about the flaw. William designs other animatronics, Spring locks are animatronics, ergo, it's plausible that he designed the spring locks. But even if he did, we have to assume that he knew that the spring locks had this failure in them, which is in direct conflict with what we see in the game. He trigger the failure, just like Phone Guy said it would be triggered. If he knew the flaws of the design, he shouldn't have challenged them when he needed it to save his life.

The moisture in the air may have been intended, but ultimately it doesn't matter. William sprung the suit. You need any objective evidence that he knows how to wear it safely, before you can use it as a premise.

And this IS tied directly to the puppet being the Missing Child Killer. At every point, the exposition and data cleanly and neatly excuses the puppet from being innocent. She has the murder weapon, the bodies, the motive, the keys around everything that is done to stop the murderer from doing what he is doing, and we can prove she was at both locations.

If William Afton were the murderer, it wouldn't be hard to prove he knows how to wear the suit safely. But, like I've been pointing out. We can't prove that.

You can litterally see William wearing the Spring Bonnie Costume in the Fruity maze ending

[Sp4rt4n1295]

İlk olarak Doctor Script tarafından gönderildi:

Because Scott chose to focus on breathing, not atmosphere.

Like, back in the tail end of the FNaF3 era, I was saying that The Puppet had the ability to go into safe rooms because Phone Guy states: "I never liked that puppet thing, it's always thinking... And It can Go Anywhere". Now, if you take this hyper-literally, it means she can go to the moon if she wanted to (Not that I have anything against puppets going to the moon, I'm sure Kermit would have made a great Astronaut). But the point of this bit of dialog is that it demonstrates that she can go somewhere that other animatronics can not go.

When FNAF3 was released, this got clarified for us. The Puppet can go in the safe room, because she doesn't have the same digital map as the other animatronics. In FNaF6, this was confirmed in the Security Puppet Mini-game. She is not bound to a digital map, and explained because Security Puppets are meant to follow lost children. However, this only proves the initial notion.

We can assume anyone that has training to wear a spring lock suit can wear them safely. We have nothing to support that William Afton ever got this training.

We could argue, but not very effectively, that William Afton could have designed the suits and knew about the flaw. William designs other animatronics, Spring locks are animatronics, ergo, it's plausible that he designed the spring locks. But even if he did, we have to assume that he knew that the spring locks had this failure in them, which is in direct conflict with what we see in the game. He trigger the failure, just like Phone Guy said it would be triggered. If he knew the flaws of the design, he shouldn't have challenged them when he needed it to save his life.

The moisture in the air may have been intended, but ultimately it doesn't matter. William sprung the suit. You need any objective evidence that he knows how to wear it safely, before you can use it as a premise.

And this IS tied directly to the puppet being the Missing Child Killer. At every point, the exposition and data cleanly and neatly excuses the puppet from being innocent. She has the murder weapon, the bodies, the motive, the keys around everything that is done to stop the murderer from doing what he is doing, and we can prove she was at both locations.

If William Afton were the murderer, it wouldn't be hard to prove he knows how to wear the suit safely. But, like I've been pointing out. We can't prove that.

Except we can prove that William can wear the springlock suit because we actually see him doing it. In the Fruity Maze minigame, we see Spring Bonnie with human eyes in his eye sockets, not the Puppet’s. We never see the Puppet killing anyone, only helping them or trying to give them new life so it can protect them. We never see the Puppet in a springlock suit (Lefty doesn’t count because it was made specifically to lure and capture the Puppet). There is no proof that the Puppet commited the murders and all the proof points to Afton. You may call this a red herring, but every peice of FNaF media says otherwise. If the Puppet were the true killer, surely there would be some concrete evidence by now, not just your conjecture.

[JMaster]

İlk olarak Doctor Script tarafından gönderildi:

Because Scott chose to focus on breathing, not atmosphere.

Like, back in the tail end of the FNaF3 era, I was saying that The Puppet had the ability to go into safe rooms because Phone Guy states: "I never liked that puppet thing, it's always thinking... And It can Go Anywhere". Now, if you take this hyper-literally, it means she can go to the moon if she wanted to (Not that I have anything against puppets going to the moon, I'm sure Kermit would have made a great Astronaut). But the point of this bit of dialog is that it demonstrates that she can go somewhere that other animatronics can not go.

When FNAF3 was released, this got clarified for us. The Puppet can go in the safe room, because she doesn't have the same digital map as the other animatronics. In FNaF6, this was confirmed in the Security Puppet Mini-game. She is not bound to a digital map, and explained because Security Puppets are meant to follow lost children. However, this only proves the initial notion.

We can assume anyone that has training to wear a spring lock suit can wear them safely. We have nothing to support that William Afton ever got this training.

We could argue, but not very effectively, that William Afton could have designed the suits and knew about the flaw. William designs other animatronics, Spring locks are animatronics, ergo, it's plausible that he designed the spring locks. But even if he did, we have to assume that he knew that the spring locks had this failure in them, which is in direct conflict with what we see in the game. He trigger the failure, just like Phone Guy said it would be triggered. If he knew the flaws of the design, he shouldn't have challenged them when he needed it to save his life.

The moisture in the air may have been intended, but ultimately it doesn't matter. William sprung the suit. You need any objective evidence that he knows how to wear it safely, before you can use it as a premise.

And this IS tied directly to the puppet being the Missing Child Killer. At every point, the exposition and data cleanly and neatly excuses the puppet from being innocent. She has the murder weapon, the bodies, the motive, the keys around everything that is done to stop the murderer from doing what he is doing, and we can prove she was at both locations.

If William Afton were the murderer, it wouldn't be hard to prove he knows how to wear the suit safely. But, like I've been pointing out. We can't prove that.

FNAF 6 and UCN disprove the Puppet being the killer. Henry literally says: "It's in your nature to PROTECT the innocent." and the Puppet herself says in UCN: "The others are under my PROTECTION.". If she killed the kids, that's not protecting anyone, which goes against the kind of character we already know she is by these two lines.

Not to mention, we see a man in a Springbonnie suit luring away Suzie in Fruity Maze. We see his skin and eyes through the eye holes of the suit. Suzie is one of the missing kids, which further proves William killed the kids.

[Doctor Script]

Circular Reasoning

Also known as begging the question, Circular Reasoning is an argument that contains it's conclusion as it's evidence and/or premise.

Example;

The Missing Child Killer must be dressed up as a cartoon character, present at FNaF0 and FNaF2 location, and seen around dead children and able to access the safe room.
-Foxy is seen with dead children, in GO GO GO, SAVE THEM, and HAPPIEST DAY minigames.
-Foxy is able to kill children and has a weapon for a hand.
-Foxy is a cartoon mascot, and the missing child killer wore a mascot costume to gain the children's trust.
-Animatronics have digital maps that keep them from going into safe rooms
-Since Foxy is the killer, he does not have a digital map
Therefore, Foxy Must be the missing child killer.

Now, in the defense of the example here, I also keyed off of an appeal to absurdity, and a false premise, and cherry picked around the FNaF3 game which demonstrates that Foxy can not go into safe rooms. But the we should all be able to see the flaws in this argument, right?

If you conclude something, and use that conclusion as evidence to your claim, It means you don't have a basis to prove your point, because you had to use circular reasoning.

The Missing Child Killer can wear Spring Lock Suits Safely
-Only Characters that do not breathe, or have had special training can wear spring lock suits
-William Afton, being the Missing Child Killer, Must be able to wear Spring Lock Suits Safely
-We see a man in a spring lock suit, Therefore it Must be William Afton
And therefore, William Afton can wear a spring lock suit safely.

*Look to the left, look to the right*

We see the problem here, right? Fallacies are rooted out in critical theory, identified and classified Because they sound convincing but they have no logical merit.

Now, let's test the puppet under the above conditions with Foxy.

The Missing Child Killer must be dressed up as a cartoon character, present at FNaF0 and FNaF2 location, and seen around dead children, and able to access the safe room.
-The Puppet is the same size as an Endoskeleton (FNAF2 Rare screen)
-Night Guards are confused for Naked endoskeletons by the animatronics (FNAF1, and FNAF2)
-Spring Lock Suits are worn by people, which are the same size as endoskeletons, which the puppet is the same size of.
-Spring Lock Suits fail if the user breathes on them. The puppet does not breathe to our knowledge.
-Ergo, the Puppet could wear a Spring Lock suit.
-Tangentially, Lefty proves she is the size of an endoskeleton, even if Lefty is not a spring suit.
-The Puppet is seen in the FNAF0 Location (FNAF2 Cutscene) and is present at the FNAF2 location.
- The Puppet is seen around dead children in Give Gifts (FNAF2 death mini game)
- The Puppet is described as being able to go anywhere. The Safe Room is a part of Anywhere.
-Further, The digital map only includes the internal store, and the Security Puppet Mini-game proves the puppet can leave the store.
So, in conclusion, The puppet could be the missing child killer.

In all honesty, the only time this becomes proof (Since there are only so many characters and we can't prove that others may be in waiting) is if you compare this to every known character and can't find a better fit.

And this premise isn't exhaustive, this is just the things William Afton could plausibly pass at with in-game evidence and the Spring Lock suits. Things like "Could avoid Facial Recognition Software" should be on this list, for example, and would further invalidate William from possibly being guilty.

The only way to make William Afton guilty is start with the premise that he is guilty and use that as evidence whenever the game tries to prove him innocent. This is a classic Red Herring. William Afton is NOT the missing child killer.

---

Now, I've already addressed the issues with Fruity Maze enough times. You need to refute that and conclusively prove some dog exists that has any relevance to the games, Some incident that the Missing Child Killer uses the dog's death to lure a child away, that the child is the soul who possesses Chica, and her killer was William Afton, AND That William Afton can wear a spring lock suit safely.

Seriously, Don't try to argue like MatPat does.

He is OBJECTIVELY terrible at debate (In his videos), and I will spin you right 'round again because I know the flaws in these arguments forwards and backwards.

You need to find ways within the lore to narrow down in on what is in there.

İlk olarak Sp4rt4n1295 tarafından gönderildi:

There is no proof that the Puppet commited the murders and all the proof points to Afton. You may call this a red herring, but every peice of FNaF media says otherwise. If the Puppet were the true killer, surely there would be some concrete evidence by now, not just your conjecture.

I'm going to address this specifically.

All the proof Points to the puppet. All of it.

The only way to point the finger at William is to ignore the hard data and start under the assumption that he is the killer.

William was never at the FNAF2 location. He was fired for killing Elizabeth, and the FNaF2 robots had facial recognition software to catch child predators. We know he was fired, because he is no longer Purple in Midnight Motorist.

Even if he was at the FNAF2 location, he would have no reason to disable the facial recognition software.

I can prove the puppet wanted to be invited to a birthday party with FNaF3, a party of 6 attendants, just like she was denied back at Fredbear's (GIVE CAKE, count the kids. 6 in total). I can prove that Golden Freddy was supposed to be the Birthday Girl (GIVE GIFTS, She hands a present for each of the other kids to give to Fredbear, the only one that isn't handed a gift is Golden Freddy). I can prove that she locked Golden Freddy in her suit mode when Golden Freddy didn't invite her (The Puppet is the only character with a crank, in FNAF2's night 4, we see Golden Freddy standing, followed by the puppet on night 5).

Now, what concrete evidence do you have, from the games, that proves William is killing kids. For what purpose? Why does he wait years in between murders (Keep in mind that the lack of evidence for him not killing more kids in between the ones we know about is literally irrelevant enough for the games, and therefore, isn't relevant for the discussion)? How did he get around the Facial Recognition software?

At some point, you have to acknowledge that every key piece of this story Even the death of the puppet is proof that he is INNOCENT of the missing child murders.

Why would he kill kids in a dangerous suit, which his very breath may kill him (And he might not even know about this flaw), in a store with cameras, around the clock security system, murderous animatronics, facial recognition software, that he appears on, when they don't let former employees into the store Because of William Afton.

Seriously. Does your wrist get tired after that much hand waving? Any excuse that can be fabricated to fill in the slots IS Never Supported by in game evidence.

He gets around the cameras, by wearing the suit. He doesn't know how to wear the suit.

He gets into the store by working as a night guard. He is literally the reason they don't let former employee's in. He murdered his daughter with an animatronic, I'm sure Henry wouldn't let him work at the store.

He gets around the facial recognition software by dressing up in the spring lock suit. Again, He doesn't know how to wear them safely.

And why, in the name of Christ, would he kill kids in a store that he owns!? One that he franchised from Henry!? Who has got to be concerned with the idea that Afton Might have killed his daughter.

We can't even prove William Afton has the Ability to be the missing child killer. Start with the basic issue, prove that he CAN wear a suit with in game evidence, that doesn't use circular reasoning and we can talk about the other problems this theory has.

And... Does anyone care why he kills them 5 at a time? Any evidence as to what exactly he is trying to do with remnant? Does he have a goal that he is working towards, one that is motivational enough for him to keep going back to killing kids, when he works for a pizzeria that literally loses it's business to the fact that kids keep dying at his store?

[Vakkura]

wow doctor do you even know fnaf lore

[Soul Night]

"there's no proof to william being at the fnaf 2 location" wrong, as the minigame with give cakes happens there, note: it was her birthday, and what was gonna happen on the seventh day of the protagonists work week in fnaf 2? a birthday. THE birthday for henrys daughter that went wrong, not because of a bite, but because she was murdered by william afton.

[Soul Night]

also more proof william was in fnaf 2s location, the night 6 phone call, the minigame which showed him attacking you as freddy during the "save them" minigame. with 5 dead kids sprawled around. theres proof definitely.

[Doctor Script]

İlk olarak Dragonnare Empire tarafından gönderildi:

wow doctor do you even know fnaf lore

...

Are you serious?

I literally posted nearly seven pages worth of text about the lore, backed by in game evidence.

I know the lore backwards and forwards, It should be easy for you to find evidence of Purple Man being able to wear spring suits safely, if I don't.

[Vakkura]

İlk olarak Doctor Script tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Dragonnare Empire tarafından gönderildi:

wow doctor do you even know fnaf lore

...

Are you serious?

I literally posted nearly seven pages worth of text about the lore, backed by in game evidence.

I know the lore backwards and forwards, It should be easy for you to find evidence of Purple Man being able to wear spring suits safely, if I don't.

dude i have nothing to reaily add everyone is litterly proveing you wrong and you keep refuseing to accept it

[JMaster]

İlk olarak Doctor Script tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Dragonnare Empire tarafından gönderildi:

wow doctor do you even know fnaf lore

...

Are you serious?

I literally posted nearly seven pages worth of text about the lore, backed by in game evidence.

I know the lore backwards and forwards, It should be easy for you to find evidence of Purple Man being able to wear spring suits safely, if I don't.

I have a question for you. How do you explain the Insanity Ending recording if William ISN'T the killer? Henry srtongly implies that William has lured and killed the MCI kids in the past, and did it again in the minigames of FNAF 3.

[Glorious M e l o n]

İlk olarak Doctor Script tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Dragonnare Empire tarafından gönderildi:

wow doctor do you even know fnaf lore

...

Are you serious?

I literally posted nearly seven pages worth of text about the lore, backed by in game evidence.

I know the lore backwards and forwards, It should be easy for you to find evidence of Purple Man being able to wear spring suits safely, if I don't.

Okay you're just being ignorant at this point.

There are several factors that can be put into why the springlock suit in FNaF 3 broke down so quickly. The most obvious one is that IT WAS LOCKED IN THE SAFE ROOM FOR YEARS AND WAS WITHERED AND RUSTY. If that isn't enough proof, then look at the water leaking from the ceiling. That would make the springlocks loosen, so combine both the fact that it's withered and the springlocks had been loosened, plsu the fact that William was too busy on the GHOSTS IN FRONT OF HIM to think straight, the springlocks came loose.

secondly, THE BOOKS LITERALLY SAY HE WEARS A SUIT. IN THE FRUITY MAZE THAT IS A HUMAN IN THAT SUIT. THE PUPPET COULD NOT FIT OR MOVE INSIDE THAT, IT JUST CAN'T. AND THE BOOKS, WHILE THEY AREN'T IN THE SAME EXACT UNIVERSE, EXPLAIN THE EVENT THE SAME EXACT ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ WAY. DOG GETS RUN OVER. SUSIE GETS LURED IN BY A PERSON IN A BUNNY SUIT. SUSIE DIES AND BECOMES ONE OF THE ANIMATRONICS.

[innate_butchery_aptitude]

you don't really have to list out everything wrong with the theory, everyone knows it's a mess.

[Soul Night]

İlk olarak JMaster tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Doctor Script tarafından gönderildi:

...

Are you serious?

I literally posted nearly seven pages worth of text about the lore, backed by in game evidence.

I know the lore backwards and forwards, It should be easy for you to find evidence of Purple Man being able to wear spring suits safely, if I don't.

I have a question for you. How do you explain the Insanity Ending recording if William ISN'T the killer? Henry srtongly implies that William has lured and killed the MCI kids in the past, and did it again in the minigames of FNAF 3.

not to mention the fact a) it shows scraptrap while saying that and b) scott calls him william afton which in the same is calling springtrap him.

[Glorious M e l o n]

İlk olarak blixip tarafından gönderildi:

you don't really have to list out everything wrong with the theory, everyone knows it's a mess.

doctor script loves making pointlessly long pieces of text that have very dumb parts inbetween them.

[Soul Night]

İlk olarak Melon Badger(I like to Wiggle) tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Doctor Script tarafından gönderildi:

...

Are you serious?

I literally posted nearly seven pages worth of text about the lore, backed by in game evidence.

I know the lore backwards and forwards, It should be easy for you to find evidence of Purple Man being able to wear spring suits safely, if I don't.

Okay you're just being ignorant at this point.

There are several factors that can be put into why the springlock suit in FNaF 3 broke down so quickly. The most obvious one is that IT WAS LOCKED IN THE SAFE ROOM FOR YEARS AND WAS WITHERED AND RUSTY. If that isn't enough proof, then look at the water leaking from the ceiling. That would make the springlocks loosen, so combine both the fact that it's withered and the springlocks had been loosened, plsu the fact that William was too busy on the GHOSTS IN FRONT OF HIM to think straight, the springlocks came loose.

secondly, THE BOOKS LITERALLY SAY HE WEARS A SUIT. IN THE FRUITY MAZE THAT IS A HUMAN IN THAT SUIT. THE PUPPET COULD NOT FIT OR MOVE INSIDE THAT, IT JUST CAN'T. AND THE BOOKS, WHILE THEY AREN'T IN THE SAME EXACT UNIVERSE, EXPLAIN THE EVENT THE SAME EXACT ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ WAY. DOG GETS RUN OVER. SUSIE GETS LURED IN BY A PERSON IN A BUNNY SUIT. SUSIE DIES AND BECOMES ONE OF THE ANIMATRONICS.

technically the puppet can fit in a suit. then again lefty was designed for it.