So right now, everyone's freaking out with FNaF theories. Purple Guy, dead children, baby, William Afton, springlocks, crying children, sister, brother, stuffing, psychic friend fredbear, Ennard, soap operas, popcorn, exotic butters, purple eyes, silver eyes, casual bongos, ugly lamps, sour bongos, wrong turns, mini maps, the '83 house, child cameras, invasion of privacy, scars, springsuits, eggs benedict, angsty teens, pictures, dreams, plushies, nostalgia, the box, and the main story as a whole.
So for right now, I'll be (trying) to bring you smaller side theories about FNaF that, while they don't play any real impact in the story, are still something I'd like to discuss and bring up. The topic today? The Bite of 1987.
I'd like to start by proposing my thesis: It was not a literal bite. The Bite of '87 was not an incident where some deranged malfunctioning robot tore the frontal lobe from a child or adult. Not was it an incident where four surprisingly and disturbingly buff bullies got a child's head crushed. The Bite of 1987 was a financial bite.
And when you look at the circumstantial evidence, this actually makes a surprising amount of sense. First off, let's review why the chances of it being a physical bite are rather slim.
First off: There's only one animatronic in the 1987 location that even has any chance of causing it, which is Mangle. However, the amount of force and sharpness required to break the skull and tear out the frontal lobe of a brain can't effectively be achieved by Mangle's blunt, front teeth, meaning that the endoskeleton teeth would have to be used. However, the large front part of the mouth makes this next to impossible to effectively do, as well as the fact that hopefully SOMEONE has a trace of common sense.
Secondly: The Fredbear incident is popular for being considered, the bite of '87, but it has a few problems. First, due to the cameras of the private room of Sister Location, it's effectively 1983. This is next to unarguable by this point. However, it also just completely CRUSHED the child's head. Not take out the front, but CRUSH.
With that out of the way, let's consider the facts, and why the Bite must've been financial.
1. As stated by Phone Guy in FNaF2, a fortune was spent on the toy animatronics, with criminal databases, being entirely new robots, and the like. Due to malfunctions, Fazbear Entertainment had to scrap them, which is the equivalent of a huge loss of money.
2. Continuing on from FNaF2, the entire building is lit (fam) and the lack of power restrictions means that Fazbear Entertainment was just spending money on running the building at night for the guard. Meanwhile, in FNaF1, it is incredibly dark, and everything's connected to a central power source, which is limited, likely to prevent cost excesses.
3. FNaF1 takes place in a previous location. Fazbear Entertainment already owned the place and it required minimal renovating, which is highly cost effective. And, the animatronics haven't been cleaned in "20 years," which wouldn't be SUPER costly, meaning Fazbear Entertainment is squeezing every penny they can get. There's also the issue of the six year difference between locations.
4. "It's amazing how the human body can surivive without the frontal lobe" can be used as an insult. This has particularly caught on around where I tend to be. The frontal lobe is the part of the brain that controls all conscious thoughts and decision making. This remark could be a stab at upper management, who would've been responsible for the decision of the costly investments into the FNaF2 location.
Due to the stated circumstantial evidence, I conclude that, due to high risk investment failures and a lack of alternatives, that the famed "Bite of '87" is simply a bite from the company's finances.
But that's just a theory.
A NONCOPYRIGHTED GENERIC NONBRAND NAME GAME THEORY.