All posts by Snookerswamp01157

Image 1: Does it even matter that the Mimic's clawed hand looks SLIGHTLY different from Burntrap's? They're clearly meant to be the same, and they probably just adjusted it to fit the Mimic's model. Also, my point still stands in that if Mimic and Burntrap weren't meant to be the same character, they wouldn't even give Mimic the hand in the first place. They clearly added it to show a connection. Lastly, the Tales books quite literally describe the Mimic as looking very similar to Burntrap's endoskeleton, with rabbit ears, curved ribs and other features. Most importantly, it describes the Mimic as having sharp claws.

Image 2: I don't see why Steel Wool would reuse that clawmark if it was meaningless. It doesn't even portray the main Burntrap hand that the Mimic has. It's the hand with the SKELETON FINGERS, as shown by the dull marks on the print. The middle finger and the thumb are both dull, just like the skeleton fingers. There's also evidence in the Mimic's model that suggests it had to replace its hand after the events of Security Breach. Finally, that clawmark is ONLY used in Burntrap and the Mimic's rooms. I would believe ID's perspective if the clawmark was generally used throughout the game, but no, it wasn't. The claim that the vent doesn't have to be Mimic exclusive is also bullshit, as it was literally stated that the vent was used by Gregory and Vanessa to lure in the Mimic and seal it. If anything were to make the clawmark, it would have to be the Mimic.

Image 3: How the hell do literal Atari sprites prove that Follow Me happened before FNAF 1? The furnace isn't even the only evidence that proves otherwise. The timeline literally makes no sense if Follow Me happened before the events of the first game. If you're gonna use the Atari sprites as evidence, then you should might as well bring up the fact that the Chica sprite has orange legs, something that Withered Chica does NOT have.

This image is from the Steam description of FNAF 3. It clearly proves the fact that Follow Me happened AFTER FNAF 1.

(She believes that Gregbot is more plausible than MoltenMCI, by the way)

Someone should show this to ID's Fantasy lmao.

Fun Fact: He's an asshole who blocks people who criticize his theories and once tried to claim that the Mimic is LITERALLY Gregory, thus making the lore more complicated than it needs to be.

(Also he doesn't believe Talesgames in the slightest)

I sometimes have trouble telling whether someone is joking or not, so I need help.

1. If Burntrap and the Mimic were truly meant to be completely different characters, then why did they even bother giving the Mimic an extremely similar hand? Plus, it's implied that the Mimic had to replace its other hand. That's called environmental storytelling.

2. Mimic has been shown multiple times to be able to change its eye colors in the Tales books, though given that ID still doesn't believe Talesgames, her denying its color-changing abilities isn't surprising.

3. A claw mark of Burntrap's hand (specifically the one with skeleton fingers) was visible inside the Mimic's vent. That is ALSO called environmental storytelling.

4. The hand on both Burntrap and the Mimic are actually very different from the Nightmare Endo hand. The only real similarity is the tips of the claws.

5. Help Wanted 2 has already shown that Glitchtrap is the same character as Burntrap, as seen in the ending where he comes out of a charging station. Glitchtrap has been heavily implied to be Mimic1, especially shown in the SOTM update, where he gives out a Tiger Rock plush after typing in "1979". There is no feasible way for William Afton to somehow know about David Murray and his tiger plush.

6. Other than that Dr. Scraptrap cabinet in Security Breach, William Afton was NEVER shown with purple eyes. He was always portrayed with either white eyes (Springtrap) or without any irises (Scraptrap). In fact, the purple eyes on both Glitchtrap and Burntrap could've been the Mimic imitating the Spring Bonnie poster seen in both Security Breach and SOTM.

Don't interpret this as me attacking her. I am simply disagreeing with her theories.