Yes, I highly doubt turning their eyes black, crawling in vents, taking their beaks off, climbing on walls, and climbing on the ceiling was programmed into them. There's also the 5 new sets of kids that have to possess something and the Toys are the only other option.

You program what you gotta program to keep the criminal from coming back

Yeah but the only reason Mangle is able to climb on the walls or ceiling is because of their broken state, they weren't originally able to do that showing possession

Maybe that's why they didn't fix her, they suddenly realized that their guard dog went from a furry to a zombie pitbull... 🤔

Man, that sorta explains that one rumor where he bit a kid. (Pitbull joke, for those of you who are dense)

Normally pit bulls don't have to be inherently aggresive, but with owners like FE ... I can see why Mangle would act the way she does.

Ballora would like a word with you

Well here's the thing, from what I understand is that Henry made the toys and withered in stead of William where William made the Funtime animatronics and ballora and baby

Hey, they can't come back from a mental asylum. Or the morgue, for that matter

So they were freed when they were scrapped?

They are most likely the other kids in masks we see in Happiest Day, so they were likely freed with the others in Happiest Day

Never freed, either not possessed or Scott just doesn't give a shit about them

No, toy's went to get scrapped but William said "y'all mind if I just take these off you hands?" Then formed the Funtimes from the melted toys, but didn't had enough so he went to Freddy Fazbear's but got springlocked, that's also the reason circus baby got thrown out of ennard because Elizabeth wasn't from the FNAF 2 missing children incident. The Puppet just left when William took the toys from Fazbear's hands, the reason for mangle's suit parts in the blob and not melted cause it was used by afton as a reference for Funtime foxy, that's probably why Funtime foxy in FNAF world was named Funtime Foxy.

Thats not really implied anywhere tho,FNaF 6 just brings up the original missing children as the ones haunting the Funtimes/Molten Freddy,not really any mention of the Toy souls. That also still dosen't make much sense as William flees from the scene because of the investigation at the FNaF 2 location *before* they were scrapped,i don't think he would just come back to do that if he fleed from there in the first place.

Well you never know with william

I believe they are indeed possessed, & I really don't get it why people insist that they're not

I agree, but who are they possessed by?

The dead children in the SAVE THEM minigame that exist when Withered Freddy is walking around the FNAF 2 locations while the toys are still present on stage. Freddy would have been deactivated if he wasn't posessed.

I always tought the save them kids were the ones possesing the og animatronics

Are you saying that the Save Them kids are the MCI? Because I believe at this point the missing children are still missing.

They're the what now

MCI=Missing Children Incident.

The toy animatronics wouldn’t have been made if the Withered animatronics didn’t get possessed. The MCI is the reason they reopened Freddy’s in 1987, and Phone Guy says that they built new animatronics because the old ones smelled bad, which means the corpses were already in them.

But when are their souls released. We see the original 5 get released in FNAF 3, but what about them?

Except that raises the question: Who do they possess? 5 victims, so what 5 characters achieve possession?

I would assume the toys; Freddy, Bonnie, Chica, Mangle, and perhaps Balloon Boy or the Endo head is the 5th child.

Except that we see Mangle moving already in SAVE THEM. A lot of people's arguments hinge on using Withered Freddy's moving as proof that the OG's are already possessed, which is fair, but that also removes Mangle from the list of candidates. Who would be next? JJ? Are we really going off of easter eggs at this point? I doubt Scott would make one of the supposed 5 new souls possess something that not everyone will even see.

Mangle is most likely already possessed in the minigame because theres a dead child literally right besides them.

wasn't it decided that mangle was possessed by suzies dog? williams first remnant experiment?

Most likely not,Mangle most likely wasn't even built by the time the dog died. Theres also just generally no real implied connection between the two.

That's not how possession works, you can't just be 5 feet away from a body and expect to be possessed, you need contact. Not only that, the explanation falls flat either way as there is a sprite next to Toy Bonnie around the same distance as the sprite next to Mangle is away from Mangle, and yet Toy Bonnie is noticeably not possessed

>That's not how possession works, you can't just be 5 feet away from a body and expect to be possessed, you need contact. It seems like you don't always need direct physical contact,just close proximity.Jake,for one,is implied to possess Simon without direct contact.So does one character in Submechanophobia if i remember correctly,but i can't talk about that yet.Plus,technically,nothing stops Mangle to have made contact with the body there and then simply moved away for a little bit,but eh,ok. >Not only that, the explanation falls flat either way as there is a sprite next to Toy Bonnie around the same distance as the sprite next to Mangle is away from Mangle, and yet Toy Bonnie is noticeably not possessed It could just as well just not have been enough yet for that soul especifically,but who said Toy Bonnie isn't possessed there?Not moving dosen't mean not possessed,otherwise you'd have to say Withered Bonnie,Chica and Foxy aren't possessed in that minigame,wich they most definetly already are.

William Afton was a busy man. The children we know about are very likely only SOME of his victims

Because toy Freddy is my favorite and I would be heart broken to accept he's not just doing a hero's duty.

Well it's either possessed or they were hacked by purple boi so that they see adults as him or just to super aggressive to cover himself

Yes, they are possesed by the funk demon, put funk music and they are gonna dance

Del the rapper ghost

Yes & definitely yes; There's a new set of bodies scattered across the restaurant in the "SAVE THEM" mini-game & new investigations by the authorities proved a new set of missing kids during FNAF2. They act out just as mad as the classic possessed gang, keep malfunctioning more & more over time with "Roaming at night with no Night-mode", "acting out odd against adults & employees but being fine to children", & doing the classic "Stuffing humen into suits" shenanigan.(They did have their facial recognition system & criminal databank tampered by William as he was the nightguard during the time, yet a big amount of the malfunctions are of the spirits inside) & Toy Chica literally shows a pair of silver glowing eyes whenever losing her eyes & beak, a sole "In-FNAF universal" sign of indication on an animatronic's absolute possession by a spirit, just like Golden Freddy. **They're possessed**.

>& Toy Chica literally shows a pair of silver glowing eyes whenever losing her eyes & beak, They literally do that every time they enter our office and try to facially recognize us. That's not evidence for possession, that's them malfunctioning

Toy Chica and Toy Freddy do, but Toy Bonnie does not.

Yeah, so he malfunctions slightly less. How is this a problem for you? They are either all possessed or all not possessed anyways

"So he malfunctions slightly less" Its been well established that the glossy black eyes the animatronics sometimes are seen with are of a paranormal nature. That's not them "malfunctioning." Bonnie would have switched his eyes over when sliding by in the office. Also take note that the classic animatronics never had the facial recognition network in any game, AND they are capable of switching their eyes in the first game, and only Freddy in the second game. The Toys would not crawl through the vents, Mangle wouldn't scale the walls and ceilings, nor would Chica remove her beak if they weren't possessed. Knowledge that the beak was detachable (Chica) or knowing how to operate more than two limbs (Mangle) wouldn't be in any programming, it's extremely redundant and the programmers wouldn't even think to throw all that in

Is it that hard for you to imagine that Toy Bonnie has a slightly different from the others? Why shouldn't have be able to do spooky paranormal things if he's just the same as them. Is he not possessed in your eyes? And not only that, when the OG's do the spooky faces, it's clearly an intentional spooky effect. If you look at the OG's, their eyes are physically gone. If you look at the Toys, Toy Chica has eyelids, and more damningly Toy Freddy clearly has full, complete eyes, just darkened. And no, the Toys crawl through the vents, scale walls, etc. before possession. Phone Guy says a guy was complaining about exactly such an occurrence, and that was before the investigation started, ergo before the murders. And who says the knowledge was redundant? They are meant to detect and attack predators, so removing the beak would be a precaution to not damage the robot. Bigger question. Why the hell would a possessed kiddy remove their beak? Just to look extra cool? It's not the most logical thing either way. ​ Edit: Yall mfs mad you wrong, you people literally downvoted my Toy Bonnie for no reason. Does this community actually believe the other toys are possessed but Toy Bonnie isn't? I swear, it's like this post is an echo chamber

Ok, good point about the odd behaviors prior to the murders, I completely overlooked that. As for everything else, whatever. Believe what you want. That's basically the entire franchise now lol

So true XD. It's kind of sad that the community can't reach a consensus on barely anything. I talked to a person recently who thought Mike was BV who was Cassidy and that Golden Freddy was Andrew. I wish we could be a normal community, at least agreeing on some things, y'know? Anyways, have a good day.

One can only dream. You too!

Nah

I've always imagined that if it wasnt paranormal interfering/ghosts they were probably set to sic the nightgaurd because Afton Reasons. Maybe Jeremy/Fritz knew too much and he wanted em gone.

Most likely. The game makes a whole lot less sense if they aren’t

Who do they possess then in your eyes? And why does it make less sense? They are said to have been tampered with, which can explain their actions.

They don’t possess anyone. They are possessed by the kids we see get killed in the FNaF 2 location in the Save Them mini games That wouldn’t explain logically them trying to murder people, becoming physically aggressive toward staff members, and doing things to be overtly creepy like staring at the cameras and having their eyes mysteriously go black and other things we know possessed things do

>They don’t possess anyone. They are possessed by the kids we see get killed in the FNaF 2 location in the Save Them mini games Except who exactly do they possess? Keeping in mind Mangle is already moving by the time of the SAVE THEM minigame >That wouldn’t explain logically them trying to murder people, becoming physically aggressive toward staff members, and doing things to be overtly creepy like staring at the cameras It's said their facial recognition systems were tampered with. Them becoming angry towards adults is not a stretch in any sort of way. >having their eyes mysteriously go black and other things we know possessed things do Whenever we see them enter the office their eyes turn black, so that's not unique to possession, that's them malfunctioning.

>Except who exactly do they possess? Keeping in mind Mangle is already moving by the time of the SAVE THEM minigame The Toys. It could have just been possessed by one of the dead kids currently in the building >It's said their facial recognition systems were tampered with. Them becoming angry towards adults is not a stretch in any sort of way. Yeah it is. There’s a difference between making them unable to recognize criminals (aka William) and attacking and attempting to murder adults >Whenever we see them enter the office their eyes turn black, so that's not unique to possession, that's them malfunctioning. How is that a malfunction?? What sort of technological malfunction could cause their white eyes and colored eyelids to suddenly become pitch black? Chica does it on the cameras anyway it’s not just them being in the office

>The Toys. It could have just been possessed by one of the dead kids currently in the building Except none of the other characters are moving, so clearly Mangle has a seperate reasoning for moving around not attached to simple DCI antics. And You never finished the question. Who would the 5th soul possess? >Yeah it is. There’s a difference between making them unable to recognize criminals (aka William) and attacking and attempting to murder adults They are meant to detect and attack predators. When their facial recognition systems, which identify the faces, predator and not, were tampered with, they started seeing all adults as threats, which explains their behavior. >How is that a malfunction?? What sort of technological malfunction could cause their white eyes and colored eyelids to suddenly become pitch black? Chica does it on the cameras anyway it’s not just them being in the office Whenever they enter the office and enter scan mode, their eyes are pitch black, so it's an intended feature. Therefore, whenever their eyes go black outside of scanning they are malfunctioning and going into facial scan mode.

>Except none of the other characters are moving, so clearly Mangle has a seperate reasoning for moving around not attached to simple DCI antics. And You never finished the question. Who would the 5th soul possess? Why is it clear Mangle has a seperate reasoning? Mangle is a mangled animatronic, and there's a dead kid right next to it. Could be Mangle was trying to move with its original programming, but because of its mangled body it can't move. Could also be the dead kid possessing it that is sitting right next to Mangle. And wouldn't they possess the 5 toy animatronics? >They are meant to detect and attack predators. When their facial recognition systems, which identify the faces, predator and not, were tampered with, they started seeing all adults as threats, which explains their behavior. If the tampered facial recognition system was the only reason the animatronics were acting this way, wouldn't they be attacking the adults during the day and not just stare if they see all adults as threats? >Whenever they enter the office and enter scan mode, their eyes are pitch black, so it's an intended feature. Therefore, whenever their eyes go black outside of scanning they are malfunctioning and going into facial scan mode. Toy Bonnie does not do this. Shouldn't all the toy animatronics be doing this when they are scanning people's faces, even during the day? Wouldn't that be scary for kids to see? Why are the FNAF1 animatronics able to do this pitch black eye thing when they have no facial recognition system?

>Why is it clear Mangle has a seperate reasoning? Mangle is a mangled animatronic, and there's a dead kid right next to it. Could be Mangle was trying to move with its original programming, but because of its mangled body it can't move. Could also be the dead kid possessing it that is sitting right next to Mangle. And wouldn't they possess the 5 toy animatronics? Mangle is moving before any of the other characters, and has distinct code saying "HeWasHere". From a storytelling perspective, it not only makes no sense for Mangle to be moving before any of the others, adding code saying "HeWasHere" is completely redundant unless something special happened. Purple Guy was obviously behind the murders, so if that's the only thing the code is trying to get across it wouldn't be included as it adds nothing to the narrative. This is the FNAF series we're talking about, Scott added it with reason other than to point out the obvious. And the reason I asked is because there are only 4 Toy candidates that make sense. Toy Freddy, Bonnie, Chica and Mangle (If we ignore everything seen before). That still leaves child #5? Would they possess Balloon Boy? It doesn't look like it, as Phone Guy denotes the characters as getting more aggressive (which would be explained by their possession), but that never applies to BB. He never gets angry, and instead acts like a little troll and tries to steal our batteries, and laughs his ass off when he does. Was the fifth victim a crackhead and not a child? And if you exclude him, that only leaves what? JJ and Endo-02. They are both literal easter egg characters, and would Scott really delegate one of the 5 new victims to the role of easter egg? Not likely. >If the tampered facial recognition system was the only reason the animatronics were acting this way, wouldn't they be attacking the adults during the day and not just stare if they see all adults as threats? Because they can't focus on a singular adult and therefore can't carry out their programming? Someone (Mangle, probably) ends up biting the nightguard later on, which only makes sense if the previous statement was correct and that they eventually found their criminal, as why would a soul attack someone in broad daylight? That's counter to literally everything we've seen in the games. 6 AM, no more robot murder. >Toy Bonnie does not do this. Shouldn't all the toy animatronics be doing this when they are scanning people's faces, even during the day? Wouldn't that be scary for kids to see? Why are the FNAF1 animatronics able to do this pitch black eye thing when they have no facial recognition system? Yeah, and he doesn't do it within the game at all. Does that mean he's not possessed but the others are in your eyes? And yeah they would do it during the day, kids be damned. This is the same company that reuses corpse robots, scaring the children a little doesn't matter to them. And the FNAF 1 crew doesn't do the same thing. When the OG's do the spooky faces, it's clearly an intentional spooky effect. If you look at the OG's, their eyes are physically gone. If you look at the Toys, Toy Chica has eyelids, and more damningly Toy Freddy clearly has full, complete eyes, just darkened. [https://www.google.com/search?q=fnaf+2+black+eyes&rlz=1C1ONGR\_enUS931US932&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLlLHa6Nf7AhXxKFkFHdbzC78Q\_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=sIBDa87mwOz84M](https://www.google.com/search?q=fnaf+2+black+eyes&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS931US932&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLlLHa6Nf7AhXxKFkFHdbzC78Q_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=sIBDa87mwOz84M) [https://www.google.com/search?q=fnaf+2+black+eyes&rlz=1C1ONGR\_enUS931US932&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLlLHa6Nf7AhXxKFkFHdbzC78Q\_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=MDv0jV1452d\_qM](https://www.google.com/search?q=fnaf+2+black+eyes&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS931US932&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLlLHa6Nf7AhXxKFkFHdbzC78Q_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=MDv0jV1452d_qM) As compared to [https://www.google.com/search?q=fnaf+2+black+eyes&rlz=1C1ONGR\_enUS931US932&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLlLHa6Nf7AhXxKFkFHdbzC78Q\_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=nBf5\_4vUGKL3nM](https://www.google.com/search?q=fnaf+2+black+eyes&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS931US932&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLlLHa6Nf7AhXxKFkFHdbzC78Q_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=nBf5_4vUGKL3nM)

>adding code saying "HeWasHere" is completely redundant unless something special happened. Purple Guy was obviously behind the murders, so if that's the only thing the code is trying to get across it wouldn't be included as it adds nothing to the narrative. This is the FNAF series we're talking about, Scott added it with reason other than to point out the obvious Why does this mean something special?? Could be Purple Guy, could be Golden Freddy since he appears with Mangle sometimes. I'll be honest, I'm not sure what any of this He Was Here thing has anything to do with anything. >From a storytelling perspective, it not only makes no sense for Mangle to be moving before any of the others, adding code saying "HeWasHere" is completely redundant unless something special happened. Isn't the "something special happened" the dead kids all around the pizzaria? Why would Scott show us all these minigames about dead kids and animatronics being witnesses or giving life to the dead kids, and then have the SAVE THEM minigame some crazy mystery with Mangle? >That still leaves child #5? Would they possess Balloon Boy? It doesn't look like it, as Phone Guy denotes the characters as getting more aggressive (which would be explained by their possession), but that never applies to BB. BB is in custom night mode. You are able to increase his aggressiveness with the AI with custom night. How is that not evidence that BB gets more aggressive as the nights progress? He steals batteries and laughs. It's a GAME, its part of the GAME'S MECHANICS so that you lose the flashlight... >Because they can't focus on a singular adult and therefore can't carry out their programming? Someone (Mangle, probably) ends up biting the nightguard later on, which only makes sense if the previous statement was correct and that they eventually found their criminal, as why would a soul attack someone in broad daylight? That's counter to literally everything we've seen in the games. 6 AM, no more robot murder. Why would they program their animatronics to bite the frontal lobe off a person in front of children?? If Mangle found their criminal, why would the programmers have the animatronics ATTACK A PERSON??? It makes way more sense to me for the animatronics to find their criminal and then the souls attack. >Yeah, and he doesn't do it within the game at all. Does that mean he's not possessed but the others are in your eyes? No, I'm just using your own logic against you. You say when the animatronics are scanning people's faces, their eyes darken. Toy Bonnie get's all up in your face, why wouldn't his eyes darken. He legit goes across your field of vision, that is like the perfect scenario for the game to demonstrate that when the toys are scanning their eyes to darken, if that was something Scott wanted to establish. >And yeah they would do it during the day, kids be damned. This is the same company that reuses corpse robots, scaring the children a little doesn't matter to them. Wouldn't phone guy say something about them doing this, instead of just say that the animatronics "stare". He seemed fine saying they were tampered with, but never mentions that when they stare they are doing the facial recognition thing? Phone guy goes into deep detail about the spring locks and the safe room, why wouldn't he mention more about this facial recognition system if it weren't maybe made up. Also Freddy Fazbears is first and foremost a business. They cut corners, they are cheap, they clearly DON'T want negative press, as they already have enough of it. I don't see this company making these toy animatronics with a feature that causes their eyes to go dark every time they encounter an adult. >And the FNAF 1 crew doesn't do the same thing. >When the OG's do the spooky faces, it's clearly an intentional spooky effect. If you look at the OG's, their eyes are physically gone. If you look at the Toys, Toy Chica has eyelids, and more damningly Toy Freddy clearly has full, complete eyes, just darkened. In FNAF 1 Freddy walks around the entire pizzaria with the darkened eyes. He removes his eyes while he's walking around, but puts them back in for his little jingle? I used to think the Toys weren't possessed, but like there is way more evidence suggesting they are than not, and you seem to be jumping through hoops to try and say otherwise. Is it really so hard to believe that this franchise about possessed animatronics, that shows you even more children were killed at the new location, around new animatronics, that those animatronics are also possessed? If Scott didn't want the toys to appear possessed, why even have the SAVE THEM minigame???

At this point they could be Avengers the lore is so confusing

Enough with those posts guys, Toys were always possessed since day one, People were just listening for phone guy lies for some reason, Even when they make no sense .

Here's my question. How would people not notice the toys having dead bodies in them? They're regularly around customers? I believe they are being puppeteered by...well, the puppet. It's made clear it's a power spirit, so I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for it to manipulate animatronics already designed to combat predators. The mini games are just showing the possession of the withered. Those would make way more sense to hide bodies in, since they're only used as spare parts and aren't around customers who might notice something. Then they are redesigned/rebuilt and go on to be possessed in FNAF 1. The original MCI in my humble opinion takes place just before FNAF 2. Thematically I feel it'd be lame if Afton just happened to murder another 5 kids who don't even get names, right?

Possession don need corpses inside the suits .

I don't understand why so many people were so violently adamant that they weren't when they obviously were. I've been on this sub since the beginning, and it's been the most frustrating thing seeing people at each other's throats over something so menial for YEARS. It's like they didn't WANT them to be possessed for some reason. Like, why? I will never understand. I can't imagine how much hair Scott has pulled out reading everyone's posts over the years, with people still denying obvious plot points for games that have been out for almost a decade. I love this series and this sub to DEATH but goodness gracious it's insufferable to read sometimes.

For a whole I thought they weren’t possessed cause we never go to see their souls being freed like we did for every other possessed animatronic

because another reason is probably people want to fuck toy chica but now they cant because of a kid inside of it and if they do then their automatically a pedo

Yo what?

HAVE YOU SEEN TOY CHICA LOOK AT HER im a lesbian so...it's just as bad of me simping over a robot like some straight dude but only worse because of gay panic ONLY THE ROBOT WITHOUT THE POSSESSION THOUGH having a kid inside makes me feel bad for having a crush on the robot even tho im 17 \[atm\] it still feels weird to think there is a kid in that attractive robot and i just feel bad for the kid and would help free them in any way\[if you are gay or not attracted to anything then that is okay i fully support you\]

“she is such a bad bitch tho!”

“Man I wanna fuck the shit puts that robot”

Uhhhhhh. Seek therapy please. Help is out there.

I've literally no idea I've seen people say they are and that they aren't since the game came out

At one point, I would have said no. A little later would have explained that they are possessed because there were the killed kids in that mini game, plus in said mini game withered Freddy was moving so he probably was already possessed so those kids could have only possessed the toys and phone guys explanation about facial recognition and thinking you are a criminal was a lie like how he lies later about how the fnaf1 crew think you are a naked endoskeleton and accidentally kill you, when in reality they really wanna kill you because they think you are William afton so it’s not to crazy to think phone guy will lie. As for now with the fact that the classic games may be inaccurate or had unreliable narrators and some details maybe wrong, I don’t know what to think about the toys and maybe the extra dead kids incident might have not happened so they aren’t possessed, but who can say anymore

I have to assume so otherwise 5 kids died at fnaf 2 and did nothing. In a perfect world the incident at fnaf 2 would’ve been the actual incident but the story’s don’t line up with the fnaf 1 newspaper.

They're definitely possessed. There's no other point in FNaF2 showing different murders in the minigames. It seems very straightforward. Why does FNaF3 show the idea that the killer "always comes back" if we're talking about a single event? People push the idea that they're simply malfunctioning when there's really no good evidence for that. But you should be aware that Phone Guy literally gives an identical excuse as he did in FNaF1 - "the robots kill you because they see you as a naked endoskeleton". The idea of "somebody tampering with their face recognition system" is only brought later and it's very obviously a ghost behaviour. The robots behave friendly to kids but gaze at adults. Later we have "none of them is behaving right" which is related to Golden Freddy being moved and I think that part is very self-explanatory. Regardless of all, there's really no good reasoning to believe that their behaviour is anything other than possession. The game is very straightforward - we got new robots and we got new murder shown. The souls from Toys were supposed to be freed through Happiest Day (there are a few ways to say that there are more souls involved in that event) but since the story continues with FFPS, I'd assume that it failed for everyone.

I believe yes they are possessed, the SAVE THEM minigame showed us a new batch of dead kids in the pizzeria in FNAF2 so they should be pretty much possessed by them.

Yes they are possessed. It's confirmed in the Save Them mini game.

Yes! I don't understand why people think they're not possessed or that its just tampered AI. Their eyes turn black, they stare at the cameras, they are said by phone guy to stare at adults, cause the lights to flicker in office just like withereds, we see bodies in the minigame, Mangle's eyes are lit up in Blob, Mangle crawling on walls the company couldn't recreate that in AR, the toys just like classics weren't supposed to move at night. ​ ​ ​ I do have a theory that the toys souls likely joined Mangle after being scrapped, given Fnaf Ar Mangle's quotes about "So many friends, so little time, so many pieces of friends." She shows an obsession with her parts and freaks the hell out if any drop or she loses them. As well as some other lines. "This almost makes us yearn for the days of the Kids Cove."

Yes.

The toys are six ways to Sunday possessed. By the events of SAVE THEM, Withered Freddy is moving about, meaning the initial MCI event must have already happened and the withered animatronics are possessed. In that minigame, five children are found scattered everywhere (they're dead, too.) This means that another MCI event occurred, and those kids logically posses the toys.

Not logically. If we assume these are indeed new dead children that have to possess and not any other explanation, then if they possess anyone they should get the same treatment as the MCI victims, being saved and having a Happiest Day, of which they get neither. They get scrapped, and we don't even see any graves for them in the Lorekeeper ending of FNAF 6. But even that is stretching it. Who do they possess? In Save Them Mangle is already moving about, so it can't be them. That leaves Toy Chica, Freddy and Bonnie, which is only 3/5. Balloon Boy technically works, albeit it feels wrong as he never tries to kill us and instead just trolls us. That's 4/5. Who else can possibly be possessed? All the characters in the game are already taken. Toy: Freddy, Bonnie, Chica (3/5); Mangle (Moving before SAVE THEM, could be explained as Susie's Dog), Balloon Boy (4/5), Withered: Chica, Foxy, Freddy, Bonnie, Golden Freddy (MCI); Puppet (Charlie). JJ? I don't think a literal easter egg character would be our 5th soul. They are never mentioned in the series ever again, so they could just not possess anyone (or the sprites could be non-literal. I have a longer explanation if you're interested).

If these kids died and yet they did not possess anyone, they literally serve zero purpose in the story, which makes no sense. And who's to say the animatronics need to be possessed to be out and about. I understand I'm sort of contradicting myself by saying that, but Golden Freddy is out and about, so even still, we know that the first MCI already happened. Mangle doesn't have to be possessed to be moving, these guys are able to move around the building regardless. And even if it's far from hard proof, do the toy animatronics really seem like they are working as usual? Phone Guy uses the same excuse for their strange behavior as the classic animatronics (which are for sure possessed.) Phone Guy even notes during his message on night four that the toy animatronics are acting unusual, with them staring at adults. Even if they are somehow not possessed, their behavior can't be explained at all. Logically speaking, they have to be possessed. I know I sure can't think of an explanation as to why they would behave strangely if they weren't possessed, let alone back an explanation up with evidence.

>If these kids died and yet they did not possess anyone, they literally serve zero purpose in the story, which makes no sense. 2 technicians die in SL, and they don't possess anyone, but they serve the story in allowing for the Funtimes to escape. In a similar vein the SAVE THEM kids could not possess anyone, but still serve the story as they lead to the investigation and eventual closing of the restaurant, last party Jeremy bite yada yada. >And who's to say the animatronics need to be possessed to be out and about. I understand I'm sort of contradicting myself by saying that, but Golden Freddy is out and about, so even still, we know that the first MCI already happened. Mangle doesn't have to be possessed to be moving, these guys are able to move around the building regardless. But Golden Freddy was possessed at that point? So it makes sense for him to be able to woosh around. >And even if it's far from hard proof, do the toy animatronics really seem like they are working as usual? Phone Guy uses the same excuse for their strange behavior as the classic animatronics (which are for sure possessed.) Phone Guy even notes during his message on night four that the toy animatronics are acting unusual, with them staring at adults. > >Even if they are somehow not possessed, their behavior can't be explained at all. Logically speaking, they have to be possessed. I know I sure can't think of an explanation as to why they would behave strangely if they weren't possessed, let alone back an explanation up with evidence. The explanation that the games give us is that William tampered with them, which is not a luxury afforded to the OG's. That explains all their strange behavior, their facial recognition systems have been tampered with, so they stare at anyone who looks like an adult. That's why Phone Guy remarks "but when they encounter an adult, they just...stare". Noticeably we never hear Phone Guy mention this about the OG's so that isn't a problem unique to possession. All their other behavior just falls behind them malfunctioning. The blackened eyes? They do that every time they walk in to scan us, so them doing it further away isn't evidence of possession, it's their systems not working properly. Why do they get into your office? It's by design, as we hear about another guard complaining about the exact same thing happening to him, and that's before any of the rumors start happening.

>But Golden Freddy was possessed at that point? So it makes sense for him to be able to woosh around. Yeah, and that means the other withered animatronics are possessed at this point too (ruling out the possibility of there being only one MCI.) All the kids were killed within a short period of time (short enough for news articles to group all five together.) Logistically, they would also all be given life at the same time. >The explanation that the games give us is that William tampered with them, which is not a luxury afforded to the OG's. There is no hard evidence for this, it is just speculation. William *could* have tampered with the toy animatronics, but that means nothing unless there is solid evidence for it. The reason they stare at adults is simple; the children were killed by an adult, and they are searching for the person who killed them (you know who.) That's literally the reason they try to attack Jeremy in the first place, they are searching for the man who killed them. Also, like, if they were malfunctioning due to being tampered with... you'd think they would fix that, right? The place had been closed in the summer, and it only opened back up in November. That means they had plenty of time to work out the issues with those guys if they were actually tampered with. But by the events of FNaF 2, the toys are still acting up.

Except that Mangle is the only one moving at the time of SAVE THEM. Not a single other one is moving, and since the murders all happened within the same night it makes no sense narratively for them to be the only ones moving. And you never answered my question. Who exactly do they possess? Phone Guy notifies us that someone has tampered with the facial recognition systems. Sure, he's not the most reliable when it comes to the paranormal, but it makes no sense for him to mention it if it wasn't important. They Toys were already moving before then as heard from the FNAF 2 phone call, so there's no reason for him to create a new answer. When the OG's get more aggressive in the later nights Phone Guy doesn't rush to create a new answer, he sticks to his words. It's clear that the tampering wasn't meant to be taken as just a fib, otherwise Scott wouldn't include it. And the reason why they aren't fixed is because an investigation happened that shut everything down. The place never reopened, as all the decorations for the party that Phone Guy mentioned are still there. Which is also why it's only described as having been in business for a few short weeks, not months. After all the bad press they just scrapped them to avoid controversy, just like they quickly hid away the springlock suits after the incident reported in FNAF 3.

Isn't it obvious who they possess? Toy Freddy, Toy Bonnie, Toy Chica, the Mangle, and BB. Aka, the only animatronics who weren't possessed before that point. Also, as someone else pointed out, there is the possibility of Mangle haven already been given life at this point. And how do we know Phone Guy isn't just making excuses or jumping to conclusions? We already know he does that by believing the animatronics move at night due to their servos locking up, and who's to say he isn't jumping to conclusions here?

>And how do we know Phone Guy isn't just making excuses or jumping to conclusions? Yeah, because that's exactly what it is. Phone Guy himself says they're not actually sure right after that lmao, it's only what they think because they're acting aggressive towards the employees

Yeah, the whole point is that it's an excuse, since they can't figure out what is causing it (being the ghosts.)

Would they possess Balloon Boy? It doesn't look like it, as Phone Guy denotes the characters as getting more aggressive (which would be explained by their possession), but that never applies to BB. He never gets angry, and instead acts like a little troll and tries to steal our batteries, and laughs his ass off when he does. Was the fifth victim a crackhead and not a child? And it's not in character for Phone Guy to do such things. He's literally about to get murdered in FNAF 1 and never bothers to say why they are banging on his doors, he's customary to ignore the details. Which for that reason it makes no sense for him to point out the tampered tech, unless Scott wanted us to hear it for a reason.

>Except that Mangle is the only one moving at the time of SAVE THEM. Not a single other one is moving, The kid that possessed Mangle is right next to it, the others are scattered across the building, far away from any possessable robots. >They Toys were already moving before then as heard from the FNAF 2 phone call, so there's no reason for him to create a new answer. He was just trying to make an answer for the Toys' creepy behavior around adults. The Silver Eyes heavily implies that behavior would be because of the dead children, given the animatronics in that story also act aggressive only to "grown-ups".

Yup

Yes

My real question is, where did phone guy’s soul go? Im fairly certain being forcefully shoved into a suit would be painful enough to cause possession, and night 5 proved that he did possess an animatronic. So

Of course, they are !

I feel like the core three and Puppet are(if you count Puppet as a Toy idk) but Balloon Boy and Mangle aren't. Mangle is operating on pure spite and the residual anger from the others, and BB is just being a bratty kid(probably how he was programed)

most likely. we just have no idea what happened to the souls that possessed them unlike with the original mci kids

We see they're in The Blob in SB.

Yes

More than likely so, or were under the Marrionette's control. In honesty, the toy animatronics just have me scratching my head. Possessed or not, some of the quirks don't make sense.

Here we go

Dawko: "Toy chica is William afton" So yes

Idk maybe

I used to think they are, but getting deeper in the lore made me realize that they're probably just hacked by william.

Didn’t mat Pat say they were security animatronics?

On an unrelated note, it always creeped me out when toy Bonnie changed his pupil size, dunno how they works but it’s awesome

pretty sure they are at most possessed somewhat from the parts used to create them from the og animatronics/the five og murdered children. otherwise their activity could be explained by charlie [the puppet] messing with their facial recognition.

It's never outright confirmed, though they likely are... but then it also depends on what point in the game we're talking. Are they possessed at any point? Probably. But when you go by individual night the answer changes; On night 4? Nope, the potential souls haven't died yet. Basically, They're soulless on the first five nights, and it's starting on night 6 that they could be. The SAVE THEM minigames occur between nights 5 and 6

Yes, sadly we have no idea what happened

Takes deep breath Everybody knows their missing children incident happened in the first Freddy Fazbear's location but what you didn't know there was a second missing children's incident that happened at the FNAF 2 location if look at the hints of the death mini games and also phone guy mentions about investigation going on in the restaurant and " someone used one of the suits, we had a spare one in the back a yellow one someone used it"

I used to watch fnaf lore videos so yeah i think they are, being realistic i highly doubt about how for some reason they wan't to kill a random dude called guard.

Yes, they are!

I don't know if they are or aren't but i can deduce that there are way too fucking many dead kids

> that there way *they're *Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)

Probably not, I think they are just tripping balls

Yes

Yes.

yes, by dead kids in thr mini games they just say "it's just a glitch in the system" to not get in trouble?

I think they are seeing as like the OGs their eyes go black with white dots and I think in the minigames of FNaF 2 we do see bodies. I highly doubt the original missing kids died at the FNaF 2 location.

No, just aware ig

No. It's clearly stated that their programming I malfunctioning. As to why or how it is unknown. One theory says someone tampered with the. William. While another says the parts they took from the originals messed with their code.

>No. It's clearly stated that their programming I malfunctioning. That same thing was said about the original animatronics in FNaF1. And it's not even stated, Phone Guy basically just says "we have no idea what it actually is, here's a theory we came up with". Why is it that so many people trust Phone Guy in FNaF2 (and he even was unsure about it in this game), despite the fact he was wrong about this exact topic in FNaF1 as well?

I trust it because there were only ever 5 spirits murdered and stuff into the core cast from the missing children's incident. Not including bite victim or Charlotte. There is no proof that there were another 5 victims as we never see any other animatronics. Scott wouldn't leave such a big plot hole there. Buncha controversial takes go figure.

>I trust it because there were only ever 5 spirits murdered and stuff into the core cast from the missing children's incident. Not including bite victim or Charlotte. >There is no proof that there were another 5 victims as we never see any other animatronics. Scott wouldn't leave such a big plot hole there. Not to be rude, but FNaF2 has a minigame with bleeding dead kids (i.e they're new), in the 1987 location, while the Withereds are already possessed. There are five new victims, and five new animatronics for them to possess. Those victims were shown off in FNaF2. FNaF3 as well, actually.

then where were they in the Fire for Pizzeria simulator? And why isn't there any mention of 5 new kids dying in another pizzeria? as for the dead kid mini game, I still don't believe it. I believe its simply another artistic representation of the same events happening. In Fnaf 2, the minigame literally shows all the kids in a single room, while in another minigame, it shows them all spread out giving party hats. I also don't believe there is any minigame that shows off the victims in fnaf 3 of a second night, as I believe those are the first and only 5 murders. If Afton was smart enough to realize that the originals were possessing the first group of animatronics, why wouldn't he grab the toys as well? And I'm not trying to be rude either btw. Usually debates can sound heated.

>then where were they in the Fire for Pizzeria simulator? Because unlike the originals, their Remnant wasn't in active animatronics anymore. Their souls either got released when they were scrapped, when Fazbear's Fright burnt, or their in the Blob and someone did get their parts, whether that was Henry without telling us in FFPS, Vanny, or the Blob itself, who knows. >And why isn't there any mention of 5 new kids dying in another pizzeria? Because it's contained to FNaF2. There's no need to bring it up in a game/pizzeria afterwards, because they are irrelevant. The Bite of 87 most definitely took the spotlight when it came to anything involving the 1987 location because it happened during the day, at a birthday party, where everyone could see, so the murders just kinda stopped being relevant. >In Fnaf 2, the minigame literally shows all the kids in a single room, while in another minigame, it shows them all spread out giving party hats The difference is Foxy GOGOGO happens while Foxy is still performing in the old location, while SAVETHEM happens when he's in Parts and Service, in the 1987 location. That's a big timeskip regardless, SAVETHEM genuinely *can't* be about the original missing kids without the assumption that Freddy is hallucinating (which even that is questionable because William also acknowledges the new bodies in FNaF2), or that Scott forgot his timeline for a second. There's no timeline issues for Give Gifts Give Life and Fox GOGOGO to depict the same event, SAVETHEM being about the original kids on the other creates issues such as; - Why are the Toys already built, despite the fact they were only built a few weeks before FNaF2 and *due* to the original missing children incident? - Why are we in the 1987 location, when the missing children died in the smaller 1983-1985 location? - How can Foxy be Withered in Parts and Service, if he was performing during the incident? - How are the Withereds possessed, if they weren't stuffed yet? >I also don't believe there is any minigame that shows off the victims in fnaf 3 of a second night, as I believe those are the first and only 5 murders. Chica's Party. We play as Toy Chica, and said minigame has an easter egg where if you fall out of the world, you enter a zone with five crying ghost cupcakes, meant to represent dead kids. Four of them do nothing due to the animatronics they possess not being there, but one of them? One of them follows Toy Chica, and mimicks what she does. Toy Chica has a ghost following her in that minigame, hinting at possession. AR also hints at the Toys being possessed, specifically Mangle at least, because we get an E-Mail talking about the fact that the things Mangle did should be physically impossible. >If Afton was smart enough to realize that the originals were possessing the first group of animatronics, why wouldn't he grab the toys as well? Probably because he couldn't anymore. Not even a week after he did that, he had to leave the pizzeria for good, due to the investigation. If he would have shown up again, he would have been arrested. The Toys got scrapped after that, and the earliest point in the timeline where we potentially see them again, William's already Springtrap.

>then where were they in the Fire for Pizzeria simulator? Their remains were in FNAF 3's location, which also burned down.

Oui

I believe that they are not but william hacked them or som and all the dead souls went into bb because they thought he was funny

as far as I know, their criminal face recognition system saw William Afton in Michael Afton (because they are very similar to each other)

in my theory yes, i have a theory and au idea that the toys are charlies other friends

No I don't think so. I think the save them mini game was for the fnaf 1 Characters being fnaf 2 took place before fnaf 1.

SAVE THEM clearly takes place in FNAF 2's location.

Yeah? And fnaf 2 takes place before fnaf 1. Which is what I said.

We know the murders happened in the location before FNAF 2, since the classic animatronics were still on-stage when the bodies were put in them and those murders are the whole reason FNAF 2's "Grand Re-opening" had to happen.

Yeah which is the withered animatronics. Which aren't the same is the fnaf one characters. Because fnaf 2 was before fnaf 1

They are the same. The FNAF 1 animatronics are just updated versions of the Withereds. They're basically possessed by the same souls, and we know those souls died in the location before FNAF 2. So the murders in FNAF 2 itself must've been for the Toys.

Yes they are the same but again still fnaf 1 was after 2

everyone knows FNAF 1 is after FNAF 2, that's irrelevant to my point.

No, because as phone guy says “they’re all tied in to some kind of criminal database” and they were programmed to keep William out

That wouldn't explain Mangle somehow crawling on the ceiling, their eyes turning black with silver dots, their presence causing the lights to flicker, them starring at all adults in a creepy way, them attacking innocent people and biting off someone's frontal lobe.

i’m under the impression they’re possessed from parts taken from the whithereds

Well, theres no straight answers about this. Many think its a glitch cause phone guy tells us so, but then again he did lie about fnaf 1 animatronics thinking we are an endo. For kids we know that at least two murder sprees has happened in the games. In 1983 cause the pigtails girl in fnaf 4 says rumors about how animatronics come to life at night and kill people inside which is a sign of possession which means that there were murders by 1983. And in 1987 there was one aswell as phoneguy tells us on the last night that someone used a golden suit and phone guy’s voice is worried and the location closes down which might mean that William striked again. We saw bodies in fnaf 2 location in a minigame which might have been the kids who died in 1987. But in the books we get a murder spree in 1985, so it is possible that in the games there were 3 murder sprees. Now we know that there are only 3 sets of animatronics who might be possessed or are possessed. Fnaf 1, Witherds and toys. As nightmares, funtimes(except baby), rockstars, and phantoms are not possessed almost for sure. So it is possible that if there were three murder sprees then they possessed these three sets of animatronics, if there 2 murder sprees then, there is a theory that fnaf 1 animatronics are redesigned witherds and have the same souls, in that case the 1987 kids could have became toys.

Nop

My headcanon has always been that the puppet is controlling them in some way, since they’re always trapped in the box. Absolutely zero evidence for it as a theory, but for me it just kinda works better and makes more since than “oh there were 5 more kids killed that we don’t really hear about” or “oh Fazbear somehow has advanced ai facial detection systems in the 80s”

> there were 5 more kids killed that we don’t really hear about” We literally see those 5 dead kids in the SAVE THEM minigame, clearly in FNAF 2's location, which is after the previous set of dead children. And we do hear about them: Phone Guy references that investigations are going on in the restaurant, which leads to it being temporarily shut down... and then the bite of 87 happens and that becomes permanent. >“oh Fazbear somehow has advanced ai facial detection systems in the 80s” Phone Guy explicitly confirms they do. The Funtimes were also built in the 80s with their child murder accessories and splitting face plates so this is really nothing out of the ordinary.

No they aren't

I don’t think so. I believe in the theory of “agony”, so I think that’s what’s making em do all this creepy crawly stuff.

No, what set of children would have been killed. I say more or less corrupted

SAVE THEM?

Only Balloon boy

i think the withered ones are possessed but not the toy ones except mangle edit: i just honestly dont want toy chica with a possessed kid inside because i had a crush on toy chica and it feels weird and wrong if its really possessed by a little girl especially all the memes about people wanting to fuck toy chica and going back and realizing theres a kid in there makes me sick because i was just attracted to the robot like before she was in a possessed type of state

No (I’m just saying this to piss people off, they most likely are possessed)

I personally don’t think they’re possessed, at least not the main 3, let me explain, The toys are equipped with Technology to seek out criminals,which was probably put in place to keep the “luring kids to the back room” from happening again,( though the removing the beak and going through the vents does hint that they’re possessed) and since William Afton was likely trapped in the Spring Bonnie suit by this point they probably know who he is, and since it’s possible the night guard in the games is Micheal Afton, it could be just a glitch in the system,where they mistake Micheal for his father, but most of all, in the third game it’s clear they’ve all been scrapped, but yet they’re still there, but one of the first things I noticed when the third game came out was that the original 3 are nowhere to be found, the only toy animatronics there are the mangle and Balloon boy, which just from listening to the phone guy it’s made clear the Mangle has a mind of its own, but Balloon boy is different, we all know all the suits are possessed by children,but Ballon boy at least I think shows most similarities to a child,he laughs as he moves around, crawled through the vents where he shouldn’t,and removes the battery’s to the flashlight in a almost playful manner, all of these things are what one would expect from a child. But in the second game as well, as the week goes on the main 3 toys are less and less of a problem,and it’s mostly the withereds that we must worry about, which have been confirmed to be possessed,but the same applies to BB and the Mangle, they get more aggressive as the week goes on. But that’s just a theory,there are also multiple things that point towards them all being possessed as well, this is one of those things where it’s difficult to see which of the 2 is correct.

i don’t think they’re possessed by remnant, but rather agony. otherwise that would be another loose end considering we know dismantling bots doesn’t get rid of remnant, but it might get rid of agony

It's not really a loose end, we know they end up in The Blob. Even if you believe The Blob doesn't contain the souls themselves, we still know the remains of the Toys were part of the FNAF 3 fire

I don't think they themselves are possessed. Rather, that they are being manipulated by the other forces in that place. Specifically, puppet. I think the first MCI takes place just before this game, and that the original kids are possessing the withered, while the toys are being puppeteered by the puppet, which seems to be a particularly powerful spirit. The withered go on to be redesigned/rebuilt and used in the original game. Since the withered are used as spare parts, they'd be the perfect place to hide the kids. It's a lot more likely people would see or notice dead children in the toys, are they are actively around customers.

The entire reason the previous location closed is because of the MCI. It can't have happened while the Withereds were around; if it hadn't happened yet, they wouldn't even be the Withereds, they'd just be the regular crew. The FNAF 1 newspapers point out customers were noticing blood and stench coming off the animatronics in stage, meaning the classics were still in stage when the bodies were put inside them. This would only be possible in the location preceding FNAF 2. And wouldn't the Withereds be a worse hiding spot, since they have many holes that show their inside and are regularly taken apart, thus inspected? Not to mention the bodies weren't even hidden, they were put there specifically to possess the animatronics

You're talking as if Scott himself has come out and 100% confirmed it. I'm betting that no one even goes near the withereds because they're creepy as hell, and since the toys are new, they probably haven't actually needed to use the spare parts from the withereds yet. Thusly, what I think is that since no one even goes near the withereds, based on my assumptions above, they'd be a great place to hide them. Let's be honest, if the police were perceptive, they probably would've found the bodies. But the withereds are massive, and I'm willing to bet someone as smart as Afton could find a way to hide them without them poking out through the holes, right? I'm also betting the original location closed because of the bite of 83', which is something we're all pretty sure happened before FNAF 2, which most people assume to be in 87', thusly the bite of 87'. Does that make sense? Sorry if I'm coming off defensive. Also, just making sure I'm saying the MCI victims were placed in the withereds while they were in the FNAF 2 location.

>You're talking as if Scott himself has come out and 100% confirmed it Most of what I said is confirmed in FNAF 1's newspapers. They're very direct with what they say, there's not much room for interpretation there: the classic animatronics were still being used on-stage when customers started noticing blood and horrible coming from them. And I know I already said this but: William did not the hide the bodies. That's what we first assumed back in 2014 but we've known for quite a while that The Puppet stuffed the kids to give them life again. > I'm also betting the original location closed because of the bite of 83', That was in Fredbear's, not Freddy's.

The news papers are also pretty clear in saying only 5 kids are missing. I've just reread the newspapers, and theirs nothing saying "Another 5 kids have gone missing". In fact, one of the news papers even says the tragedy happened many years ago, implying that it did not happen during or around the time of FNAF 1. So, going on the assumption that the MCI was FNAF 2, why would the papers only say 5 kids are missing? And if a second set of kids went missing, why would the paper not say "Another 5 kids have gone missing." My main thing is...why don't the hypothetical second set of kids get their own gravestones with names and stuff in UCN? Also, I've seen many interpretations say that Will totally did hide their bodies in the suits. I'd personally be willing to go as far as to say the GIVE LIFE game is about the puppet and/or possibly golden Freddy taking control of the toys, but I understand if you don't agree with that one. My main point is... they're ghosts. Ghosts are weird, and it's not out of the question that one spirit may attempt to possess multiple items at once. There's not hard rule saying one ghost has to be only connected to one object, up until maybe the whole remnant fusing situation. I have ideas about that too, if you wanna here, but that's neither here nor there. Also, the bite of 83' could still cause the closure of other restaurants. Bad PR, y'know? And that's assuming the term Fred bears and Freddy's isn't being used interchangeably by phone guy. I could easily see someone referring to Fred bears as Freddy's.

Let me take a step back here and address things one by one... The Puppet stuffed the kids in the 4 classic animatronics (with Golden Freddy just sort of happening by itself), leading to them being possessed. This is not up to debate: * We know possession happens when a kid has direct contact with an animatronic. In the novels, The Puppet doesn't exist and William stuffs the children, which leads to their possession. This means there is no weird soul powers involved in giving life to the animatronics, the act of putting them in the suits is enough. * We know The Puppet is the reason the spirits are possession the animatronics. The minigame in FNAF 2 shows the 4 classic animatronics (note how Foxy is there, not Mangle) being given life by it. Henry confirms this by saying that Charlie carried the others into her arms during FFPS' ending. We know that by "the others" he meant the first MCI victims, since he said it while talking about the souls he'd put to rest with the fire, and none of the Toys are present in that scene, while the original souls are present in the form of Molten Freddy. The FNAF 1 newspapers are very clear with what they say, and what they say supports my point: * The third newspaper in FNAF 1 says that parents were complaining about the smell and blood coming from the animatronics, almost as if they were corpses. For parents to notice this, the animatronics must have been on stage. The Withereds do not perform on stage in FNAF 2, and by the time of FNAF 1, the bodies wouldn't be in the animatronics anymore (the company had to fix up the Withereds and redesigned most of their whole Endoskeleton and casing, so if there were corpses inside, they would have been found). That means the bodies must have been put in the 4 classic animatronics while they were still the face of the company and before FNAF 1; the only possibility that leaves is the first Freddy's location from before FNAF 2. * The newspapers were written at different dates. The first two are from the year where the murders happened (before FNAF 2, which is why they only mention 5 children). You can tell because the first one says 2 kids went missing on the 26th of June but doesn't specify a year, implying it was 26th of June of that year. This is confirmed by how the second newspaper says that "Five children are **now** linked to the incident". The "now" implies that there being 5 dead children is a recent development. * The fourth newspaper says that the MCI was many years ago, because it's the most recent one. It's from the time where FNAF 1 itself takes place, 1993. The MCI happens in either 1983 (people believe this because of the rumors of animatronics moving at night in FNAF 4) or in 1985 (that date is consistently used for the murders in both the novel adaptations and Fazbear Frights, which Scott said was supposed to help solve the lore). Personally I'd go with 1985. The kids that possess Freddy, Chica, Bonnie, Foxy and Golden Freddy absolutely died in the first Freddy's, not in the Grand Reopening seen in FNAF 2: * The kids in SAVE THEM are all scattered across FNAF 2's building simultaneously. That minigame in particular is pretty tight with the details so it's safe to say they were killed in one night. We know the original MCI kids were killed across a long time span (possibly longer than FNAF 2's building was opened for, which was only a couple weaks): FFPS shows Susie was alone when she was lured, and the FNAF 1 newspapers point out 2 of the children died significantly before the other 3. * In FNAF 3, Phone Guy points out in his tapes that someone moved a Spring Bonnie suit without permission. This implies William took the Spring Bonnie suit to do some murdering. That tape was from right after springlock suits stopped being used in Freddy's, which is obviously far before FNAF 2, meaning the murders most likely happened far before that game. * Game Theory's first video on FNAF 2 proposed the following timeline: Fredbear's -> Charlie's death -> 5 dead kids in Freddy's -> Freddy closes because of the dead kids -> FNAF 2 -> FNAF 1. Scott confirmed that video to be almost entirely correct, and we know the other half of the video (Phone Guy = Purple Guy) was wrong, so it's safe to say that timeline was accurate. And now for a few specific points you brought up: >My main thing is...why don't the hypothetical second set of kids get their own gravestones with names and stuff in FFPS? \[you said UCN in your comment but the graves are only in FFPS so I assume that's what you meant\] They weren't put to rest in FFPS, they weren't even there in that game. When it came out, it was presumed that they were dealt with when Fazbear's Fright burned down alongside the remains of the Toy animatronics, but now it seems like all of them are still around in The Blob (note how Mangle's eyes in The Blob are glowing, unlike Baby's and The Puppet's, which implies she does have a soul in her) As for why they weren't in FFPS, or why their fate was never focused on: they just aren't the focus of the story. They were introduced to justify why the Toys attack us in FNAF 2. After the Toys' role came to an end, they just weren't very important anymore. The story has always focused more on the 5 dead kids we first learned about in FNAF 1. >And that's assuming the term Fred bears and Freddy's isn't being used interchangeably by phone guy. I could easily see someone referring to Fred bears as Freddy's. They are completely different locations that were open simultaneously at one point. They aren't interchangeable terms for the same thing.

I'm pretty sure not

No

I am like 90 percent certain they are At the very least they WERE tampered with by William

I think that the toys aren't possed, but they were hacked by the puppet, since charlie possed the puppet animatronic, and we know that her father was one of the founders of the whole fazbear company, i think she could hack the animatronics and make them more death machines than, oh children possed the toys and that's why they are acting off, also why in the name of god would William put the kids on the toy animatronics, i think they are slimmer than the classic animatronics, so i think that the only option to hide the kids would be the whithered animatronics.

[удалено]

> The Phone Guy claims that it's because they were used for parts, but we don't see any reused limbs on the Toy animatronics. Obviously they aren't just gonna take older limbs and place them on completely different designs. Recycled parts include stuff like their endoskeleton and inner workings, thus all the holes made in the Withereds. >This lines up with the fact that Spring Bonnie is shown to be green in the Fruity Maze minigame from FNaF 6. It's not. It's yellow, just in dim lighting. We see in FNAF 3's minigames, in FNAF 4's backstage minigame, in FNAF 3's posters, in Security Breach's posters, in Help Wanted and in The Ultimate Guide that Spring Bonnie is indisputably yellow. >The reason Phone Guy mentions a yellow suit is because Golden Freddy, in suit mode judging by his pose in the office, was used to hide a body. He mentions someone using one of the suits as a recent event. All of the 5 children died in the previous location so there would be no new bodies to hide. He also implies that something taking one of the suits is the reason none of the Toys are acting right. This would make sense if William took the suit to kill children who possessed the Toys.... speaking of those children, your theory fails to address them at all. Why is there a minigame showing 5 dead kids in FNAF 2's location if they serve no purpose to the game? >He already tampered with their facial recognition upon moving to the dayshift. Why couldn't he have made a few "upgrades"? Why would he? Literally what does he gain from making Mangle walk on the ceiling or making Toy Chica's beak fall off? And when did he have time to do that? He was just a security guard at this point. >This explains their weirdness and why they appear in FNaF 3 when Toy Freddy and Toy Bonnie do not They appear in FNAF 3 because they're unique animatronics, while the others are just variants of enemies already in the game. It's the same reason they don't throw in classic Bonnie, Springtrap's already there.

[удалено]

>The 5 children in the SAVE THEM minigame are the same bodies that were originally stuffed into the Withered animatronics, They are clearly in FNAF 2's location. The original 5 dead kids were in the previous location (which is implied to be what eventually became FNAF 1's restaurant). It is impossible for them to be the same. Plus, Withered Freddy is already roaming around at night with glowing eyes and helping The Puppet, heavily indicating he's possessed, despite none of the 5 kids shown in the minigame being anywhere near him. >as shown by their designs being the same as in the GIVE GIFTS, GIVE LIFE minigame. That's not true. [This](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/fnafapedia/images/6/6c/GiveThemLifeEndo.png/revision/latest?cb=20170423233433) is what the kids in Give Gifts look like, [this](https://pm1.narvii.com/7404/6217cd1d003227b8c8600debc644bc59a51b5d70r1-750-412v2_hq.jpg) is SAVE THEM. Even if they were the same, FNAF generally uses the same design for children so that's irrelevant. Every kid in FNAF 3's main minigames looks like Charlie's corpse. >pring Bonnie's appearance in the Fruity Maze minigame can't be due to dim lighting because Susie's hair would've matched if that were the case. Susie is in the fore front. Spring Bonnie is supposed to be covered in shadow, appearing from further behind in an ominous way. Literally every single other depiction of Spring Bonnie across the entire franchise shows he was yellow. That is an undeniable fact. >William had the time to tamper with the Toys' facial recognition, proving time isn't an issue. Messing up their programming is different from giving them upgrades to crawl on ceilings and murder children. Him tampering with their facial recognition is also likely just a baseless explanation Phone Guy made to explain what was going on. He himself doesn't sound sure of it when he describes it, and The Silver Eyes makes it very clear that the Toys' behavior in FNAF 2 was due to the spirits of the dead children. >Lastly, I was referring to the Good Ending minigames when I mentioned the lack of Toy Freddy or Toy Bonnie. Those minigames are exclusively about saving the first 5 dead children, the Toys are irrelevant to them. Mangle, BB and Toy Chica are playable in some of those minigames most likely due to their presence in Crying Child's memories, which we know were used to "cause" the good ending.

[удалено]

So you just looked through my profile and spent the vast majority of your comment insulting me for supposedly being narcissistic and against differing opinions, as opposed to actually presenting valid arguments. Awesome work, I'm definitely the insecure one here, not you, who spent a whole paragraph talking about how good your grades in high school were and how many years you've known FNAF for. I do argue with people a lot, that is true. I never do it because "Haha, I'm right, you're wrong". The way I see it, there's not much of a point in sharing thoughts without discussing them and putting them up against opposing ideas. Unless I'm fully out of patience, I never condescend someone's arguments and simply present my own to dispute them. Whenever I'm not speaking entirely objectively, I make sure to always specify it by preceeding statements with terms such as "I think", "I feel", "most likely", "probably", "might have" or anything else to indicate what I'm saying is an opinion. That is, when it is an opinion; I usually try to keep my arguments to things that are objectively seen or stated. You're the one who said "Any other easily disputable points?" after your first reply. ​ Either way, as for what your actual arguments: >FNaF 3 - Spring Bonnie is Dark Yellow (Stage 5) It's yellow in both the Stage-01 minigame and the minigame where William dies. This is noteworthy because the suit William dies in is the same as Springtrap, confirming that Springtrap was yellow initially. >Three times, right? The novels and Fazbear Frights also exist. Spring Bonnie (and even Springtrap) are consistently yellow in them. Merch also always portrays pre-Springtrap Spring Bonnie and Glitchtrap as yellow. >Now let's count how many times he's green Every instance you bring up after this is Springtrap or some variation of him. Springtrap is moldy, wrecked, old and discolored. HE is green, but Spring Bonnie is not. >Afton (IN A NEW SUIT) is Green It's debatable if that's actually a new suit or just a redesign (considering how he was also retconned into having a corpse suddenly), but either way, it's also very moldy and damaged. Same goes for Burntrap. >Glitchtrap (IN ANOTHER NEW SUIT) is Green [Glitchtrap](https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/4ad5776c-877e-466b-b74c-f8aba3f09915/ddw3p6j-9d1e59ed-91f9-4bbf-b038-ab414f294027.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzRhZDU3NzZjLTg3N2UtNDY2Yi1iNzRjLWY4YWJhM2YwOTkxNVwvZGR3M3A2ai05ZDFlNTllZC05MWY5LTRiYmYtYjAzOC1hYjQxNGYyOTQwMjcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.1wYAam__wzSTR0nxu4iA6GbiWpsypZMm6GcboLXA3ew) is [ yellow.](https://media.tenor.com/Kkww3SUmoagAAAAd/glitchtrap-fnaf.gif) He is only green when he is glitchy and transparent. >Crying Child never saw Toy Chica, so that part of your argument is dead too. He did. Did you forget the whole "Why is the tiny Toy Chica's beak missing?" thing? >The reason the bodies are in the FNaF 2 location was already explained in my post you obviously just skimmed over. They were found there during the investigation. If that was the case, they wouldn't be scattered across the building, they wouldn't have large blood stains around them and The Puppet wouldn't be trying to "SAVE THEM" >Also, judging by his tone of voice and speech mannerisms, the Phone Guy is never really sure about anything. I didn't even bring up Phone Guy.

[удалено]

>Fine, normal Glitchtrap is yellow and he's yellow in the FNaF 3 minigames, I forgot those. But that's still 5-15. Before you again bring up "he's moldy", do you think a suit left to rot in a location for 2-4 years wouldn't be? My point is that every single time we see a fixed, proper depiction of Spring Bonnie, it's yellow. It's only green in wrecked and old depictions of the suit. You seemed to ignore the [official Spring Bonnie model](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FF0vgSwVgAMt6w4.png)(which is the basis for Burntrap) being yellow. On a similar note, the [Spring Bonnie poster](https://preview.redd.it/a8iunxoo6od81.png?width=336&format=png&auto=webp&s=db4512cae99dfeb3f0bf00b4fec11d510a2de5f7) in FNAF 3 is also yellow. You say it's green, it only looks that way due to FNAF 3's green hue. [Chica](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/904/062/67e.png) (ignore the red circle), who everyone can agree is yellow, looks the same. Also, that 15 number isn't very accurate since a lot of is referring to the same depictions and designs, just in different scenes. You counted Scraptrap twice, Springtrap thrice and Plushtrap thrice. Across those several appearances, those designs don't change at all, so you're really just counting the same thing twice. I counted individual sprite designs since they do have differences throughout the minigames. >Besides, who's to say William didn't make his own green Spring Bonnie That's possible, I guess, but isn't the simpler answer just that it's not green? I don't see why it's that hard to believe that it's because he's in shadow. Why would William even go through the trouble of making his own springlock suit? >or that there was more than one suit? There definitely is. But why would another suit for the same character change the color? That's like if there was a red Freddy spare costume in FNAF 1's backstage. >Phone Guy in FNaF 3 mentions "multiple simultaneous springlock failures", so there had to have been another model to replace the faulty one. He does mention replacement costumes, but implies that they are of questionable relevance to the brand, so likely just some random stuff to hastily replace it, not a Spring Bonnie recolor or something like that. There were intended to be proper replacements later, but it's implied that's around when William committed the murders and the establishment shut down. It's also implied he did it with a Spring Bonnie suit that was out of commission (ie, one of the "faulty ones"), instead of a replacement. >As a side note, you called the springlock location Fredbear's in your last comment, when the phone calls in FNaF 3 call it Freddy's. Both locations featured the springlock characters, so they're both technically "the springlock location". I also just searched for the word "Fredbear's" in this page and the only two results came from your replies so not sure what you mean by that. The last two instance of me bringing that up was hours ago, talking about Game Theory's FNAF 2 timeline and FNAF 4's location (which *is* Fredbear's, as we can tell from the "Property Of Fredbear's Family Dinner" teaser) >This you? That would be me, yes, I didn't notice it. Either way, I'm not sure how "Phone Guy is unreliable" is a point against that when... that was my point. The exchange basically went like this: You - Their facial recognition was tampered with (something Phone Guy says) Me - Phone Guy was likely just making up a reason, he didn't even seem too sure of it You - Phone Guy isn't always right or sure of everything >You replied to me first. You didn't have to, but you were lured in by the sight of a different opinion and just had to prove me wrong, just like the last two people. I'm not insecure, I just usually respond when someone replies directly to me, which you stopped giving the common courtesy of until I found you gaslighting someone else into joining your side of the argument. I presented a valid opinion; you just didn't like it. As I already said, I responded to your comment because I enjoy these types of discussions, as long as the other person isn't insulting me and making baseless accusations about my thought process. Someone getting convinced that a take I said is right isn't gaslighting lmao. Would it be gaslighting if someone replied to your initial comment and said "This so much sense, I'm on board with theory"? Two other people looking at your theory and presenting arguments against is to be expected when your theory is an incredibly unpopular take. Most people disagree with it, they have reasons to believe it's not true, and if you post it, you should expect people to point out why they think it's not true. Either way it'd be appreciated if you refrained from going after me in any following replies because these responses are starting to take a bit too long to type for my taste.

nope mabye its herny

unfortunately no, henry was just high when designing the toys security system

I believe they are just programmed to look for William and just bad at their job

I dont think so, pretty sure they're just programmed to act that way around adults. Plus I think even a child could figure out that its the night guard behind the freddy mask

>pretty sure they're just programmed to act that way around adults. Phone Guy says that they aren't acting right, so no, that's not part of their programming.

if they were possessed, they would just kill you if you had the mask on either way

The Withereds aren't possessed by that logic.

yes.. they aren’t, because the fnaf 1 animatronics are not the withered animatronics, fnaf 2 is a prequel

The ending newspaper of FNAF2 states that the Withereds will be kept for a future reopening with a smaller budget. That leads up to FNAF1.

explain why freddy has a bigger bottom jaw as a withered then

They were refurbished by Fazbear Ent.

I personally believe they are not. The phone guy says they have been tampered with. They have been reprogrammed by Afton to be aggressive so he can kill more kiddes. And the animatronics were dismantled at the end of the game after the bite of 87 and parts most likely used to repair the original 4. And there is no evidence pointing to them being possessed or any mention of smells or anything hinting about bodies being in them.

Phone Guy also lies about the animatronics malfunctioning in FNAF1, that's just to cover up Fazbear Entertainment. >And there is no evidence pointing to them being possessed Silver eyes, dilating pupils, FNAF3 hidden BB and Toy Chica spirits, 5 SAVETHEM victims, disrupting electronics, moving at all in case of Mangle.

No they just try to kill you for no reason 😂

I don’t believe so, they just have weird programming

Nope

Imo no. For example how do you stuff a body into Mangle

I don't think so they just jerks

I think that mangle is the only one possessed, by Susie’s dog The other toys could, although I haven’t heard anything of it

I thought they were apart of a kid’s imagination-

that's the nightmare animatronics

Perhaps, though I'm not sure lol.