5 nights at freddys

[Switch]

it seems like scott changes his mind a lot regarding his games so we'll see

 

TCRF doesnt have a page up for fnaf 4 yet so im interested to see what'll be posted. how much do u want 2 bet the stick man is still in the game files.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Switch

[nlechoppa]

fnaf is offically over.

for proof check scott's website.

[sailing101]

fnaf is offically over.

for proof check scott's website.

Or it will be, once we get the Halloween DLC.

 

 

 

[FluffyPillow]

I've seen many theory vids pertaining to FNAF 4, especially about the locked box, and like them, I think that maybe the box might contain something to do with the "Purple Guy" since after all, we know (somewhat) of who he is and what he did, but no one knows (except Scott, of course) why he did what he did, if that makes any sense; or the Puppet/Marrionett, since the character is just, there, and its identity is somewhat shadowed - so it could be like Ripan mentioned that the DLC might be connected to one of the previous FNAF games, and not the 4th, hence the "different than what you're expecting" quote Scott said on Steam (Just my 2 cents in it all, and it's just an opinion/thought, so please don't bash me? *hides in a hole* ^^; I apologize for the text wall/ ^^; )

Edited August 4, 2015 by FluffyPillow

[demonicvampiregirl]

fnaf is offically over.

for proof check scott's website.

 

Somehow I don't feel it's over. There is so many questions left unanswered and a lot of things he can do with the plot line.

[FluffyPillow]

Also, another thing I forgot to mention ^^; I doubt the FNAF series is done, at least, not quite yet :3 From the same playthrough vids I was talking about, there are ones talking about each of the teaser images Scott puts on his site, and that if you take those images and up the contrast/filters/brightness/whichever, you'll find hidden words/messages on them - including the "The End" image he has (or had?), where if you alter the image, you'll see a small "?" there :3

[Lythiaren]

That was the date of a Fazbear TV how

 

The game shows the Bite of 87

 

The teasers focused on the number 87

 

The game takes place in1987.

Inconsistent with existing lore. FNAF1 states the animatronics were allowed to walk around during the day until the Bite of '87. Nothing about the FNAF4 minigames suggests animatronics walking around independently during the day. The only suit we see walking around clearly has a live person inside and the easter egg shows someone putting on the Spring Bonnie suit. Since the bite shown in FNAF4 clearly shows kids putting another kid in danger by shoving him into the head, there's no reason to assume this is the reason the animatronics aren't allowed to walk around. Implementing the "Don't touch Freddy" rule, perhaps, but not shutting down independent movement.

 

Additionally, since the brother refers to Freddy as Fredbear, the events of FNAF4 appear to be at Fredbear's Diner, prior to (or possibly during/very shortly after) the acquisition by Fazbear Entertainment. This is supported by the presence of only two animatronic characters in the restaurant. FNAF3 states they acquired some additional suits in a hurry following the simultaneous failure of two spring suits at one location, but the kid has toys of four characters. This suggests the events of FNAF4 are during the brief transition period while they shove the new characters into the mix. Since the Chica and Foxy animatronics in FNAF1 and FNAF2 are capable of independent movement, it's reasonable to conclude that they were built after the spring suits were discontinued (since that was when they were introduced) and before the Bite (since they're not allowed to walk around during the day anymore).

 

FNAF2 is in late 1987, which means all of the following must have happened between the initial spring suit failure referred to in FNAF3 (whenever it was) and November of 1987:

 

1) The spring suits were discontinued for safety issues, forcing the company to acquire new costumes and create characters for them (safe rooms also sealed but that takes like a day or two)

2) Chica and Foxy were established as core characters for the Freddy Fazbear franchise

3) Classic suits were built and installed

4) The newer characters must have persisted for long enough to receive a kid-friendly redesign

5) The toy suits were built and installed

6) The staff became so exhausted with having to put Foxy back together every night that they gave up and left the jumble of parts to be a play area for younger children (ie. the Mangle)

 

All that takes a long time, and it all happened between the spring suit failure and Jeremy's first day on the job. FNAF4 is when the spring suits are still in use, before all that happened. After all, since there are only two suits in the restaurant, that means it's most likely before/during the construction of the "classic" suits.

 

The more I think about it, the more '83 looks more feasible. Think about the timeline you're presenting here: if this was the Bite of '87, and the classic suits were built around this time and then installed and allowed to walk around. But that doesn't make sense, since they weren't allowed to walk around anymore after the Bite. This is before the toy models (which are allowed to walk around during the day) even enter the equation. FNAF4 can't possibly be the infamous Bite because it creates a time paradox.

 

And then there's the head injury. It appears this is general head trauma rather than specific destruction of the frontal lobe, which MatPat got into in his recent video about how destruction of the frontal lobe removes one's fear response and ability to focus. The effects of removing or destroying portions of the human brain are very well-documented, and the perspective presented by FNAF4 (the bullied child's post-traumatic hallucinations) isn't anywhere near consistent with a frontal lobotomy. Traumatic injury, though? Most definitely.

 

Besides, Scott loves red herrings. The FNAF2 hype led us all to believe it was a sequel before we were hit with the 1987 bombshell. How much content required brightening images and screens? Remember the Springtrap in the newspaper at the end of FNAF3? A huge part of FNAF is that not everything is as it seems.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Lythiaren

[nlechoppa]

Or it will be, once we get the Halloween DLC.

the DLC is not related to fnaf4

the DLC is not a prequel or sequel

FNAF is done.

The movie may possibly explain everything, but as far as things go the games are done.

[Lythiaren]

the DLC is not related to fnaf4

the DLC is not a prequel or sequel

FNAF is done.

The movie may possibly explain everything, but as far as things go the games are done.

I have difficulty believing that DLC for a FNAF game is completely unrelated to FNAF. Forgive my skepticism.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Lythiaren

[Taryn123]

Inconsistent with existing lore. FNAF1 states the animatronics were allowed to walk around during the day until the Bite of '87. Nothing about the FNAF4 minigames suggests animatronics walking around independently during the day. The only suit we see walking around clearly has a live person inside and the easter egg shows someone putting on the Spring Bonnie suit. Since the bite shown in FNAF4 clearly shows kids putting another kid in danger by shoving him into the head, there's no reason to assume this is the reason the animatronics aren't allowed to walk around. Implementing the "Don't touch Freddy" rule, perhaps, but not shutting down independent movement.

 

Additionally, since the brother refers to Freddy as Fredbear, the events of FNAF4 appear to be at Fredbear's Diner, prior to (or possibly during/very shortly after) the acquisition by Fazbear Entertainment. This is supported by the presence of only two animatronic characters in the restaurant. FNAF3 states they acquired some additional suits in a hurry following the simultaneous failure of two spring suits at one location, but the kid has toys of four characters. This suggests the events of FNAF4 are during the brief transition period while they shove the new characters into the mix. Since the Chica and Foxy animatronics in FNAF1 and FNAF2 are capable of independent movement, it's reasonable to conclude that they were built after the spring suits were discontinued (since that was when they were introduced) and before the Bite (since they're not allowed to walk around during the day anymore).

 

FNAF2 is in late 1987, which means all of the following must have happened between the initial spring suit failure referred to in FNAF3 (whenever it was) and November of 1987:

 

1) The spring suits were discontinued for safety issues, forcing the company to acquire new costumes and create characters for them (safe rooms also sealed but that takes like a day or two)

2) Chica and Foxy were established as core characters for the Freddy Fazbear franchise

3) Classic suits were built and installed

4) The newer characters must have persisted for long enough to receive a kid-friendly redesign

5) The toy suits were built and installed

6) The staff became so exhausted with having to put Foxy back together every night that they gave up and left the jumble of parts to be a play area for younger children (ie. the Mangle)

 

All that takes a long time, and it all happened between the spring suit failure and Jeremy's first day on the job. FNAF4 is when the spring suits are still in use, before all that happened. After all, since there are only two suits in the restaurant, that means it's most likely before/during the construction of the "classic" suits.

 

The more I think about it, the more '83 looks more feasible. Think about the timeline you're presenting here: if this was the Bite of '87, and the classic suits were built around this time and then installed and allowed to walk around. But that doesn't make sense, since they weren't allowed to walk around anymore after the Bite. This is before the toy models (which are allowed to walk around during the day) even enter the equation. FNAF4 can't possibly be the infamous Bite because it creates a time paradox.

 

And then there's the head injury. It appears this is general head trauma rather than specific destruction of the frontal lobe, which MatPat got into in his recent video about how destruction of the frontal lobe removes one's fear response and ability to focus. The effects of removing or destroying portions of the human brain are very well-documented, and the perspective presented by FNAF4 (the bullied child's post-traumatic hallucinations) isn't anywhere near consistent with a frontal lobotomy. Traumatic injury, though? Most definitely.

 

Besides, Scott loves red herrings. The FNAF2 hype led us all to believe it was a sequel before we were hit with the 1987 bombshell. How much content required brightening images and screens? Remember the Springtrap in the newspaper at the end of FNAF3? A huge part of FNAF is that not everything is as it seems.

Thank you for point this out.

I've been trying of a way to put this into words, as i have noticed these things as well.

As well as the '?' on Scott's page, after 'The End'.

[nlechoppa]

I have difficulty believing that DLC for a FNAF game is completely unrelated to FNAF. Forgive my skepticism.

Forgive me for not knowing that Scott Cawthon's words weren't actually his words.

Forgive me for not knowing that I shouldn't trust what Scott Cawthon says.

Forgive me my wrongness in believing the creator of the game's words.

[Lythiaren]

Forgive me for not knowing that Scott Cawthon's words weren't actually his words.

Forgive me for not knowing that I shouldn't trust what Scott Cawthon says.

Forgive me my wrongness in believing the creator of the game's words.

Your sass is appreciated.

I'd just finished saying in the post above yours that Scott likes red herrings. He said it may not be what we expect, right after he set up an expectation that it wouldn't be FNAF related.

 

When it comes to this series, I'll believe it when I see it. You're free to believe what you want.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Lythiaren

[sailing101]

Inconsistent with existing lore. FNAF1 states the animatronics were allowed to walk around during the day until the Bite of '87. Nothing about the FNAF4 minigames suggests animatronics walking around independently during the day. The only suit we see walking around clearly has a live person inside and the easter egg shows someone putting on the Spring Bonnie suit. Since the bite shown in FNAF4 clearly shows kids putting another kid in danger by shoving him into the head, there's no reason to assume this is the reason the animatronics aren't allowed to walk around. Implementing the "Don't touch Freddy" rule, perhaps, but not shutting down independent movement.

 

Additionally, since the brother refers to Freddy as Fredbear, the events of FNAF4 appear to be at Fredbear's Diner, prior to (or possibly during/very shortly after) the acquisition by Fazbear Entertainment. This is supported by the presence of only two animatronic characters in the restaurant. FNAF3 states they acquired some additional suits in a hurry following the simultaneous failure of two spring suits at one location, but the kid has toys of four characters. This suggests the events of FNAF4 are during the brief transition period while they shove the new characters into the mix. Since the Chica and Foxy animatronics in FNAF1 and FNAF2 are capable of independent movement, it's reasonable to conclude that they were built after the spring suits were discontinued (since that was when they were introduced) and before the Bite (since they're not allowed to walk around during the day anymore).

 

FNAF2 is in late 1987, which means all of the following must have happened between the initial spring suit failure referred to in FNAF3 (whenever it was) and November of 1987:

 

1) The spring suits were discontinued for safety issues, forcing the company to acquire new costumes and create characters for them (safe rooms also sealed but that takes like a day or two)

2) Chica and Foxy were established as core characters for the Freddy Fazbear franchise

3) Classic suits were built and installed

4) The newer characters must have persisted for long enough to receive a kid-friendly redesign

5) The toy suits were built and installed

6) The staff became so exhausted with having to put Foxy back together every night that they gave up and left the jumble of parts to be a play area for younger children (ie. the Mangle)

 

All that takes a long time, and it all happened between the spring suit failure and Jeremy's first day on the job. FNAF4 is when the spring suits are still in use, before all that happened. After all, since there are only two suits in the restaurant, that means it's most likely before/during the construction of the "classic" suits.

 

The more I think about it, the more '83 looks more feasible. Think about the timeline you're presenting here: if this was the Bite of '87, and the classic suits were built around this time and then installed and allowed to walk around. But that doesn't make sense, since they weren't allowed to walk around anymore after the Bite. This is before the toy models (which are allowed to walk around during the day) even enter the equation. FNAF4 can't possibly be the infamous Bite because it creates a time paradox.

 

And then there's the head injury. It appears this is general head trauma rather than specific destruction of the frontal lobe, which MatPat got into in his recent video about how destruction of the frontal lobe removes one's fear response and ability to focus. The effects of removing or destroying portions of the human brain are very well-documented, and the perspective presented by FNAF4 (the bullied child's post-traumatic hallucinations) isn't anywhere near consistent with a frontal lobotomy. Traumatic injury, though? Most definitely.

 

Besides, Scott loves red herrings. The FNAF2 hype led us all to believe it was a sequel before we were hit with the 1987 bombshell. How much content required brightening images and screens? Remember the Springtrap in the newspaper at the end of FNAF3? A huge part of FNAF is that not everything is as it seems.

There is still one major hole in that theory. The FNAF 4 minigames show us that the toy animatronics exist during the time leading up to the bite.

 

This is the biggest, solid piece of evidence that this is the bite of 87, because the toys were only in use for a little over one week, in 1987.

 

Also, there is much evidence pointing to the fact that the springsuits couldn't walk around on their own.

 

We know that by the end of FNAF 2, the toys are noticeably malfunctioning. This leaves only one presentable set of animatronics left for the party.

Edited August 4, 2015 by sailing101

[nlechoppa]

There is still one major hole in that theory. The FNAF 4 minigames show us that the toy animatronics exist during the time leading up to the bite.

 

This is the biggest, solid piece of evidence that this is the bite of 87, because the toys were only in use for a little over one week, in 1987.

 

Also, there is much evidence pointing to the fact that the springsuits couldn't walk around on their own.

 

We know that by the end of FNAF 2, the toys are noticeably malfunctioning. This leaves only one presentable set of animatronics left for the party.

Plushtrap appears in FNAF4, so clearly it takes place after FNAF3 according to that logic.

[sailing101]

Except for the fact that merchandise from the original diner (like a spring bonnie plush) would logically exist well BEFORE this game.

[Kith]

According to the training tapes in 3 regarding the spring suits, they could move independently while in animatronic mode, stating that they'd move toward noise for "maximum crowd-pleasing value."

 

Re: toy animatronics

I'm not so sure that they were only in use for a week. Note that Phone Guy says "welcome to your new summer job" at the beginning of the game, and the check is dated in November... which is in the fall.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Kith

[sailing101]

According to the training tapes in 3 regarding the spring suits, they could move independently while in animatronic mode, stating that they'd move toward noise for "maximum crowd-pleasing value."

 

Re: toy animatronics

I'm not so sure that they were only in use for a week. Note that Phone Guy says "welcome to your new summer job" at the beginning of the game, and the check is dated in November... which is in the fall.

The phone guy spends a lot of time reading from a script provided by management.

 

The resteraunt had just opened, and Jeremy was the second night guard, the previous guy got moved to the day shift after complaining that the animatronics kept trying to enter his office. The second game makes a big deal about this being the grand reopening of fazbears. That's not something most businesses will celebrate for months on end.

 

This still doesn't change the fact that they are featured in the FNAF 4 minigames, and were only used by the FNAF 2 location.

 

I had forgotten the part about the springsuits moving towards sounds. Thanks for that. They still lacked a great deal of autonomy though. Otherwise, Fredbear could have prevented the bite.

[Kith]

The pace of the game and the statement are indeed at odds with one another, which is part of what makes it so confusing. Do we believe that 2 started in the summer and took place over a longer period of time, in which case each "night" is only one in which there was a significant happening instead of a week's worth of night shifts? Do we believe that Phone Guy was just reading a script and the game took place over a single week in November? And if the latter, why are they opening in November instead of during the summer when there's no school, and therefore more availability for income?

 

There's also an issue where Phone Guy states that the yellow stolen suit was in the back, and a spare... Which would seem to indicate that the spring suits were at the very least not in regular use in 2, if not already deemed unsafe.

 

And yeah, the spring suits may have been able to move toward noises, but they didn't have the ability to really decide anything for themselves. Just run through their normal programming.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Kith

[Ripan]

There's also an issue where Phone Guy states that the yellow stolen suit was in the back, and a spare... Which would seem to indicate that the spring suits were at the very least not in regular use in 2, if not already deemed unsafe.

By the end of FNAF2 we hear that there's an ongoing investigation which may lead to that the restaurant may have to close, and "someone used one of the spares, a yellow one" (I don't quite remember the exact wording here), leading me to think that there was an incident (possibly the missing children) taking place during FNAF2. Due to this incident people came to mistrust the toy animatronics since they obviously failed despite their security programming and thus had to be scrapped to appease the public outrage.

Then, at a later date in the same year, the bite happens as we see it in FNAF4. Because the toy animatronics are set to be scrapped, they brought out some of the oldest spares for one last birthday party (the one the killer used is probably not one of them). This last birthday party could be the one Phone Guy mentions at the end of FNAF2 when he tells us to take the dayshift instead.

The one issue here is time. The toy animatronics are functioning all night until 6 am on the morning before the last birthday party where we assume the bite happened. The people running this restaurant sure are fast at cleaning away anything that may put them in a bad light, right?

 

 

 

Now, about the bite.

 

I too thought the way the bite was portrayed in FNAF4 was weird, but I was willing to let it rest with the suggestion that it would be difficult to portray this event in the 8-bit style of the game. Note that this was also the reason why we originally thought that The Bite was due to one of the animatronics flipping out, bending forward and biting someone. Because in order to damage only the frontal lobe the bite would have had to come from an angle above the target. That is the first impression I got from the description of a bite that wrecked the frontal lobe. It is much more difficult to imagine how only the frontal lobe was damaged when the bite happened the way it was portrayed in FNAF4; the kid's entire head looked to be stuffed inside Fredbear's mouth.

 

I may have a possible explanation.

Remember what Phone Guy said: ""It's amazing that the human body can live without the frontal lobe, you know?"

Since only the frontal lobe was mentioned we automatically assumed that the bite was focused on only the frontal part of the skull, but if you think about it, Phone Guy's statement only implies that it was that part of the head that suffered the most trauma, enough for it to be be missing (or so damaged that it's practically functionless).

It could very well be so that the skull was positioned in such a way that it was simply the frontal part of the skull that suffered the most damage.

 

It may also be interesting to note that Fredbear's teeth appear to be mainly cubic or cubic-like in shape, much like molars or premolars, and as we know, the molars and premolars are shaped that way because they are made for crushing and grinding food when we're chewing.

However, my observation might be mistaken. It could be that Fredbear's teeth are in fact square in shape (square but flat, not cubic), like incisors. And the task of incisors is to cut and separate bites from a larger piece.

 

Another interesting skeletal tidbit to take into consideration is also that the front on the human skull also hosts interior bones (mainly behind the root of the nose and above the eye cavities), some of which are thin and could probably break easily if the outer bone (the facial bones and the frontal bone) are severely damaged. These broken internal bones could probably cause quite a lot of damage to the front of the brain if the broken splinters were pushed up and into the inside of the head.

 

 

 

Now, about how damage to the frontal lobe affects the ability to feel fear...

 

I'm not so sure about that. From what I can find on the net it seems like changes due to damage to the frontal lobe are so individual that it is difficult to pin down precisely how a patient is affected.

My guess is that the idea that "broken frontal lobe = inability to feel fear" is actually a misinterpretation. It is often mentioned that persons suffering from a damaged frontal lobe have expressed very decreased abilities in anticipating risks and danger. This is not fearlessness, it is simply an inability to anticipate the possible dangers and consequences of certain actions.

 

 

Btw, you've heard about the case of Phineas Gage, right? He got an iron bar lodged through his frontal lobe and yet he survived for 12 years (healthy enough to go traveling even) before dying from an epileptic seizure which probably originated from the injuries he sustained in the accident. This is my argument against the claim that the kid in FNAF4 couldn't be the victim of the bite of '87, because the kid in FNAF4 is implied to have died at the end of the game.

My counterargument: It is possible the kid survived for an unknown amount of time and then died at a later date. This would be supported by the fact that in FNAF4 we appear to be at home, and occasionally we even see medical equipment like an IV, pills and flowers on our bedside.

The kid was alive at the time when Phone Guy said that "it's amazing you can live without a frontal lobe", or Phone Guy didn't know that the kids had in fact already died.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Ripan

[sailing101]

Here's something I've noticed:

 

The minigames are very good at showing us what happened, but give very little information on when anything happened. The phone guy's calls are the opposite, giving us very few details on what is going on, but also serving as a clear indication as to the order of events. It's where small bits of info overlap between the two that we can piece everything together.

 

 

[Kith]

Hmm... The game, as played, contradicts the theory that the toys were already on their way to the scrap pile due to an incident earlier in the year, since they're not only active but also on stage until the very end. So they were in use during the day throughout the game.

 

As for Phineas... MatPat mentions his case in the theory video, and uses it to reinforce his assertion that this can't be the Bite of '87 victim's nightmares.

 

It's difficult to determine how much time really passes in 4, since while most of it appears to take place on consecutive nights, there is more game after the flatline. So it's possible that the person only lived for a few days, in which case Phone Guy should've known the kid died. But it's also possible that they were resuscitated, and thus survived after.

[Ripan]

As for Phineas... MatPat mentions his case in the theory video, and uses it to reinforce his assertion that this can't be the Bite of '87 victim's nightmares.

 

It's difficult to determine how much time really passes in 4, since while most of it appears to take place on consecutive nights, there is more game after the flatline. So it's possible that the person only lived for a few days, in which case Phone Guy should've known the kid died. But it's also possible that they were resuscitated, and thus survived after.

I actually don't watch GameTheory. Not because I've got much personal issue with MatPat but because there's a part of the fan base spanning from that are a bunch of obnoxious morons without any ability think for themselves, think alternatively, or think critically. That's left such a sour impression on me, so I just avoid it altogether. On the slightly more personal issue I do have with him: his ideas are often based on a lot of loose assumptions which are treated as facts. Interesting and thought-provoking yes, but it is often very loosely anchored. I speculate a lot too, but at least I make sure to show it is speculation and possibilities, guesses, not facts.

 

Even if the kid died, Phone Guy's statement about how amazing it is that you can live without a frontal lobe still works, because the kid didn't die immediately when the bite happened. No matter if the kid lived for just a few days or years, the kid still survived for some time. That is enough for people to be amazed that the kid didn't die immediately.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Ripan

[Kith]

*shrug* It's okay that you didn't see it, but I did want to mention that if people had seen the video, they may disagree with the assertion that Phineas' case proves that 4's protagonist is the Bite victim.

 

I also feel that Phone Guy wouldn't have mentioned the victim's survival so many years later without the kid surviving most if not all of the intervening time. But that might just be me.

 

I'd feel a lot better about the timeline if this was '83 and not '87, and that the toys seen in the minigame were based on the original set and not the actual toy characters. This would allow the victim to die and pass into the Fredbear (Golden Freddy) suit, where he might be able to influence the next wearer of the suit (Purple Guy) to enact revenge against the kids who stuffed him into Fredbear's mouth. The Puppet would then put their souls into the other animatronics and things would proceed as we've seen.

 

But just because it'd make me feel better doesn't mean that that's what happened.

[Ripan]

*shrug* It's okay that you didn't see it, but I did want to mention that if people had seen the video, they may disagree with the assertion that Phineas' case proves that 4's protagonist is the Bite victim.

 

(cut)

 

I'd feel a lot better about the timeline if this was '83 and not '87, and that the toys seen in the minigame were based on the original set and not the actual toy characters. This would allow the victim to die and pass into the Fredbear (Golden Freddy) suit, where he might be able to influence the next wearer of the suit (Purple Guy) to enact revenge against the kids who stuffed him into Fredbear's mouth. The Puppet would then put their souls into the other animatronics and things would proceed as we've seen.

 

But just because it'd make me feel better doesn't mean that that's what happened.

I realise I probably sounded snappish there, I didn't mean to and I am sorry about that.

 

 

I like that idea for a story. I don't know if it works in the actual game or not, but I like it as a story-idea.

 

[Kith]

It's okay. I was afraid I'd poked a sore spot for you. Good to know that's not the case. ^..^

 

Edited to add: Apparently Scott's watched the Game Theorist videos, and actually made a (still somewhat cryptic) remark on the most recent:

 

It was a good video, MatPat; I always enjoy them. Unfortunately, as your more clever viewers are pointing out in the comments below, you overlooked a crucial detail in the game. 

 

I'll be looking forward to your next theory!

 

Not sure if he's saying that the "crucial detail" proves that it is the Bite victim, or that it's not and all the '87 stuff was misdirection. The comments section is too full of all kinds of things flying around for me to judge this one accurately.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Kith