Thread:TheFreddyFromThePizzaria/@comment-31604582-20170705154304/@comment-26186871-20170708161914

Aw, how seet..

Really, all you really need to do to theorize this way, is to first try and look throughout the games for evidence, and make your theory from the evidence. I follow three main prinicpals to narrow things down to whatever my theory is.

1-The theory cannot contradict evidence found within the game. Scott has fixed glitches when they existed via patches. No saying it's some kind of mistake or glitch to ignore that piece of evidence. If Scott didn't want to put it there, he would just remove/fix it in a patch later on. So basically, all evidence is significant, and shouldn't be ignored. If you do ignore evidence you won't be solving FNAF anytime soon... What looked like a graphical glitch in FNAF2 was revealed to have actually been a thing in FNAF4, with the tiny toy chica also missing its beak. It THAT'S not a mistake, I don't know what is. No getting around it, if the theory contradicts evidence from the series, then it is debunked, unless you can explain why the evidence being there does NOT debunk the theory. And saying it's Scott trolling us is NOT a reason. He only does that on his posts, not in the actual FNAF games. Once again, it has to make sense in the FNAF lore.

2-The theory must be plausible the real world somehow. We can't have a bunch of flying Foxys and people walking through walls. In fact, FNAF is actually quite plausible, and doesn't break any scientific laws. (I mean, sure, there's spirits and all, but we haven't proven they're not real) I actually have/had a blog post debunking some of the common reasons people give saying FNAF is impossible. So, if FNAF isn't impossible, neither should our theories on the series.

3-After all of this, if there are STILL multiple theories that can't be debunked using principals 1 and 2, I just go with whatever one of them seems most plausible, with the fewest added assumptions. However, I only use 1 and 2 when I actually DEBUNK theories.