TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: in 1000 fnaf appeared and Mr. Villager lived in 1000 but fnaf appears every 1000 years and they kill...

Fact Check: in 1000 fnaf appeared and Mr. Villager lived in 1000 but fnaf appears every 1000 years and they kill...

June 11, 2025•by TruthOrFake AI
✗
VERDICT
False

# Fact Check: "In 1000, FNAF appeared and Mr. Villager lived in 1000 but FNAF appears every 1000 years and they killed everyone but they were revived ...

Fact Check: "In 1000, FNAF appeared and Mr. Villager lived in 1000 but FNAF appears every 1000 years and they killed everyone but they were revived by Lirili Larila and this happens every 1000 years"

What We Know

The claim suggests a specific timeline and narrative involving the Five Nights at Freddy's (FNAF) franchise, stating that FNAF appears every 1000 years and involves characters named Mr. Villager and Lirili Larila. However, the established lore of the FNAF series does not support this narrative. According to the Five Nights At Freddy's Wiki and the Core Series Timeline, the events of the FNAF games span from the 1970s to the 2020s, with no indication of a 1000-year cycle or the characters mentioned in the claim.

The timeline details various events, including the opening of Fredbear's Family Diner in 1970, the Missing Children's Incident in 1985, and the subsequent closures and reopenings of various establishments related to the FNAF franchise. There is no mention of a character named Mr. Villager or a revival by someone named Lirili Larila, nor is there any reference to events occurring every 1000 years.

Analysis

The claim appears to be a fabrication or a misunderstanding of the FNAF lore. The FNAF series is known for its complex and often convoluted timeline, but it is grounded in a specific historical context rather than a mythological cycle of 1000 years. The sources consulted, including the FNAF Wiki and the Core Series Timeline, provide a comprehensive overview of the events and characters within the franchise, none of which align with the claim.

Moreover, the mention of "Mr. Villager" and "Lirili Larila" does not correspond to any known characters in the FNAF universe. This raises questions about the reliability of the claim's origin, as it seems to draw from non-canonical or fan-created narratives rather than the established lore recognized by the FNAF community.

Conclusion

Verdict: False
The claim that FNAF appears every 1000 years, involves characters named Mr. Villager and Lirili Larila, and includes a narrative of killing and revival is not supported by any credible evidence or established lore from the Five Nights at Freddy's franchise. The timeline of events in the FNAF series is well-documented and does not include these elements, indicating that the claim is entirely fabricated.

Sources

  1. Timeline | Five Nights At Freddy's Wiki | Fandom
  2. Timeline (Core Series) | Five Nights at Freddy's Wiki | Fandom

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Not every migrant has a politician like Poilievre in their corner’ A member of Pierre Poilievre’s extended family has crossed through Roxham Road illegally to seek asylum in Canada from Venezuela.  Anaida Poilievre’s uncle, José Gerardo Galindo Prato, is the third from the right in the front row at the Conservative Party convention in Quebec City, September 9, 2023. The hypocrisy is overwhelming when you consider Poilievre’s stance on illegal border crossers and his blame of the liberal government. I am glad that he is here safe and sound. But what makes him special is that he’s able to live here in Canada undocumented with a deportation order and his name until Anaida Poilievre and an undisclosed MP’s office in 2021 and his efforts to get permanent residency. Article by The Breach In late July 2018, Pierre Poilievre took aim at “illegal border crossers.” “How much will it cost to house the illegal border crossers in hotels in the coming year?” he repeatedly asked during a parliamentary committee hearing, criticizing the Liberal government for helping shelter thousands of asylum seekers who had entered the country through Roxham Road in Quebec. “Who will pay for it?” Two months later, the Conservative leader’s own uncle-in-law crossed Roxham Road on foot. After failing to get his refugee claim approved, he appears to have lived undocumented in Canada with a deportation order in his name. According to documents obtained by The Breach, Poilievre’s relative—the uncle of his wife, Anaida Poilievre—received help from her and an undisclosed MP’s office in 2021 in his efforts to get permanent residency. He has since been seen attending Conservative events, as recently as 2023, according to photos examined by The Breach. Poilievre has said a Conservative government would “have the resources” to “track down” such individuals and deport them. “These are people who are not eligible to be here and we will find them and we will deport them,” Poilievre told a Montreal radio station in December. The Conservative leader has taken an increasingly hard line on asylum seekers entering Canada, calling to shut down Roxham Road, where tens of thousands crossed in recent years fleeing hardship or persecution. At his election campaign launch on Sunday, Poilievre said he would put a hard cap on immigration and take other measures. “We will keep out and deport criminals, stop fraud and crack down on bogus refugee claims,” he said. “On immigration, like everything else, we will put Canada First.” Refugee advocacy organizations say his position appears to be “his family first.” “It is deeply hypocritical that Poilievre has vilified migrants, blamed them for the housing and affordability crisis, and said he wants to deport undocumented people who are in the same situation his own family seemed to be in,” said Syed Hussan, the executive director of the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change. “If Poilievre’s family deserves to make a life here, so does everybody else’s.”‘Shut off the flow of false refugee claims’: Poilievre Anaida Poilievre’s uncle, Venezuelan lawyer José Gerardo Galindo Prato, had previously entered Canada in 2004 and lived without documentation until 2007, when he was deported by Canadian border agents. Back in Venezuela, Galindo Prato was convicted in 2017 of helping a drug trafficker escape from prison and served six months in prison, which he says was a trumped-up, false charge. In the fall of 2018, he flew to Miami, then to Pittsburgh, and later crossed at Roxham Road. The Breach obtained a draft copy of Galindo Prato’s written submission to Immigration Canada from early 2021, applying to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which Anaida Poilievre helped him prepare. At this stage of the asylum process, he would have already failed his refugee application and been served with a deportation order, according to an immigration lawyer The Breach consulted. According to email and Facebook correspondence seen by The Breach, Anaida Poilievre organized the drafting and mailing of the submission with assistance from a parliamentarian. In one message she wrote that she had a “person helping in a MP’s office.” In another, she was even more direct. “I’m trying to help my uncle,” she wrote, and “the MP can help us.” At the time, she worked as an executive assistant in the office of Conservative MP Michael Cooper, a close ally of Pierre Poilievre. Since Poilievre became leader, she has taken an active leadership role herself, narrating ads, introducing her husband at major events, and playing a key role in fundraising for the party. The revelations about an undocumented family member raise questions about whether Pierre Poilievre was in any way involved in advocating for his uncle-in-law to stay in the country, despite his outspoken rhetoric against “illegal border crossers.” In December 2024, Poilievre called for Canada to bulk up the security at the border, including by deputizing provincial police and cracking down on “false refugee claims.” “We need to shut off the flow of false refugee claims who are in no danger in their country of origin but who are sneaking in either through our porous border, through our weak visa system, and then when they’re here, making a false claim,” he said. Galindo Prato’s written submission, which the immigration lawyer verified looks like a typical example, says he was persecuted and jailed without trial in Venezuela. But online court documents from the Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice indicate he was charged with helping a drug trafficker escape from prison while he served as a legal consultant in a psychiatric clinic. Because refugee and immigration proceedings are highly confidential, The Breach could not confirm whether Galindo Prato has received his permanent residency. But The Breach was able to identify Galindo Prato sitting with the rest of Anaida Poilievre’s family in the front row at the Conservative Party convention in Quebec City in August 2023. “I love real refugees,” Poilievre said in December. “Our country was built in large part by real refugees who were genuinely fleeing danger, like my wife. But I have no time for people who lie to come into our country, and that is the problem we have to cut off.”‘Not every migrant has a politician like Poilievre in their corner’ Refugees who try to enter Canada at official border crossings are turned back, because of an agreement with the United States that suggests they are safe in Canada’s southern neighbour. So thousands of people like Galindo Prato have crossed into the country at unofficial entry points like Roxham Road, after which they are able to make a claim for asylum. There is no guarantee that they will be able to stay—tens of thousands of refugees have been deported by the Liberal government in recent years. Migrant Workers Alliance for Change executive director Hussan said that humanitarian and compassionate grounds are the last resort for denied refugee claimants like Galindo Prato and are granted on the basis of strong community ties. “But not every migrant has a politician like Poilievre in their corner,” he said. “We think every asylum seeker, refugee, migrant, and undocumented person should have permanent resident status in order to ensure equal rights. What Poilievre is proposing is instead to deport and destroy the lives of vast numbers of people—except those he knows.” Hussan’s organization is part of a coalition of groups in the Migrant Rights Network that have spent years advocating for the government to grant status to undocumented people in Canada, who number anywhere between 300,000 and 600,000. The Liberals had pledged in late 2021 to “explore ways of regularizing status for undocumented workers who are contributing to Canadian communities.” But in the wake of increasing anti-immigrant rhetoric and the Conservative Party’s surge in the polls, the government backtracked on their promise for a “broad and comprehensive program.” By contrast, Poilievre has promised to more vigorously pursue deportations, especially of people—just like his uncle-in-law—who have had their initial refugee claims rejected. “We know that there are 30,000 people who’ve been ordered deported that have not left,” Poilievre said in December. “Trudeau has lost control of immigration. I will take back control. First of all, we will track down the 30,000 people who’ve been ordered deported, and I will have them deported from this country.” Two years ago, Poilievre described the Roxham Road crossing as one of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s great failures. “Nowhere is that chaos more evident then at Roxham road where Trudeau encouraged people to cross illegally into Canada,” Poilievere said. “We need more immigrants but we need to have it done in an orderly and lawful fashion.” In 2023, the Liberal government closed Roxham Road permanently. Poilievre has increasingly blamed Canada’s crises on immigrants and migrants, saying last fall that “radical, uncontrolled immigration and policies related to it are partly to blame for joblessness, housing and healthcare crisis.” In his submission to Immigration Canada, Galindo Prato writes that he was detained without trial after making allegations about corruption within the Venezuelan government. He said he was held for almost five months in a three-by-four-meter cell, where he was beaten and deprived of clean water, medical care, and adequate nutrition. But according to the court documents filed in the Supreme Court of Venezuela by the public prosecutors office and in Venezuelan media coverage, Galindo Prato was charged with the crime of helping the escape of a convicted drug trafficker, while he was serving as the legal consultant for a psychiatric clinic. Galindo Prato did not reply to multiple attempts to reach him through direct messages to his social media accounts. Anaida Poilievre did not reply to a request for comment by time of publication. A Conservative campaign spokesperson provided a written statement to The Breach that “Mr. Galindo Prato has pursued his case through established channels, including with the use of an immigration lawyer.” “While MPs may make requests for information to [Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada], MPs do not have the ability to influence immigration cases,” the spokesperson wrote. “It is certainly ridiculous to suggest that opposition Conservative MPs would be able to influence cases under a Liberal Government.” In fact, parliamentarians frequently advocate for the Immigration Minister to expedite immigration applications, including for undocumented people. “This is a disgusting smear of Ms. Poilievre’s extended family who have been subjected to persecution and political repression in Venezuela, and we will not be commenting further,” the spokesperson added.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Not every migrant has a politician like Poilievre in their corner’ A member of Pierre Poilievre’s ex...

Mar 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: actor Prabhas given 1000 crores to indian army
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: actor Prabhas given 1000 crores to indian army

Detailed fact-check analysis of: actor Prabhas given 1000 crores to indian army

May 22, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: actor Prabhas given 1000 crores to indian army
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: actor Prabhas given 1000 crores to indian army

Detailed fact-check analysis of: actor Prabhas given 1000 crores to indian army

May 22, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Is prabhas donated 1000 crores to army
False

Fact Check: Is prabhas donated 1000 crores to army

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Is prabhas donated 1000 crores to army

May 17, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified

Fact Check: Is 1000 usd a good anchoring price to 777usd or is 1100 better

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Is 1000 usd a good anchoring price to 777usd or is 1100 better

Mar 29, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Partially True

Fact Check: It is all about 1948. It's not about October 7, 1956, 1967, 1982, 2008, 2014 or any other date on which Israel committed egregious atrocities in and around Palestine; it's all about 1948, and it's important to remember this date well. The war and the complete failure of all attempts to achieve a viable peace have pushed Palestine back to this date. The 76 years that have passed have been a fruitless struggle for 'peace'. All they have done is give Israel four decades to reinforce its total control over Palestine. This is all about history. Understanding the struggle for Palestine requires understanding its historical context. The modern history commences with Britain using the Zionists, while simultaneously being utilized by them, to establish an imperial foothold in the Middle East, effectively transforming Israel into the central pillar of a bridge from Egypt and the Nile to Iraq, its oil, and the Gulf. The calculations were devoid of morality, driven solely by self-interest. Britain had no right to cede a portion of the area it was occupying—Palestine—to another occupier, and the UN similarly lacked the authority to do so. The 1947 General Assembly partition resolution was essentially a US resolution anyway; the numbers were fixed by the White House once it became clear that it would fail. Chaim Weizmann, the prominent Zionist leader in London and Washington, requested Truman's intervention. “I am aware of how much abstaining delegations would be swayed by your counsel and the influence of your government,” he informed the president. “I refer to China, Honduras, Colombia, Mexico, Liberia, Ethiopia, Greece. I beg and pray for your decisive intervention at this decisive hour.” Among the countries that needed a push were the Philippines, Cuba, Haiti, and France. “We went for it," stated Clark Clifford, Truman’s special counsel, subsequently. “It was because the White House was for it that it went through. I kept the ramrod up the State Department’s butt.” Herschel Johnson, the deputy chief of the US mission at the UN, cried in frustration while speaking to Loy Henderson, a senior diplomat and head of the State Department’s Office of Near Eastern Affairs, who was a staunch adversary of the construction of a Zionist settler state in Palestine. “Loy, forgive me for breaking down like this,” Johnson stated, “but Dave Niles called us here a couple of days ago and said that the president had instructed him to tell us that, by God, he wanted us to get busy and get all the votes that we possibly could, that there would be hell if the voting went the other way.” In September, UNSCOP (the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine) convened an ad hoc committee to evaluate its proposals. The committee consisted of all members of the General Assembly, with subcommittees designated to evaluate the suggestions presented. On November 25, the General Assembly, acting as an ad hoc committee, approved partition with a vote of 25 in favor, 13 against, and 17 abstentions. A two-thirds majority was required for the partition resolution to succeed in the General Assembly plenary session four days later, indicating its impending failure. However, following the White House's endorsement, seven of the 17 abstainers from November 25 voted 'yes' on November 29, resulting in the passage of Resolution 181 (II) with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions. Niles, the Zionists' ‘point man’ at the White House, subsequently partnered with Clark Clifford to undermine the State Department's proposal to replace partition with trusteeship for the time being because of the violence threatened in Palestine. Niles was the first member of a series of Zionist lobbyists sent to monitor the presidency from within. Despite their unpopularity and potential resentment, the presidents had no choice but to tolerate their persistent pressure. During John Kennedy's administration, Mike (Myer) Feldman was permitted to oversee all State Department and White House cable concerning the Middle East. Despite internal opposition within the White House, Kennedy perceived Feldman “as a necessary evil whose highly visible White House position was a political debt that had to be paid,” as noted by Seymour Hersh in The Samson Option. Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (p. 98). Lyndon Johnson took over Feldman after Kennedy's assassination, granting Israel all its demands without offering anything in return. The transfer of Palestine to a recent settler minority contravened fundamental UN norms, including the right to self-determination. Resistance to Zionism and the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine were significant within the US administration, but it was the man in the White House, influenced by domestic interests (money and votes), who called the shots and has been calling them ever since. Palestine went from British control to American hands, and then to the Zionists. 29 November 1947 - partition plans. 33 voted for, 13 voted against, 10 abstained The desires of the Palestinians were irrelevant to the 'return' of the Jewish people to their ''ancient homeland'', as noted by Arthur Balfour. The fact that Jews could not 'return’ to a land in which they or their ancestors had never lived was equally immaterial. What went on behind closed doors to ensure the establishment of a colonial-settler state in Palestine, contrary to the desires of its populace, represents but one episode in a protracted history of duplicity, deceit, persistent breaches of international law, and violations of fundamental UN principles. The so-called "Palestine problem" has never been a "Palestine problem," but rather a Western and Zionist problem—a volatile combination of the two that the perpetrators are still blaming on their victims. There would be no ambiguity regarding our current situation at the precipice if Western governments and the media held Israel accountable rather than shielding, endorsing, and rationalizing even the most egregious offenses under the pretext of Israel's 'right' to self-defense. It is absurd to propose that a thief has any form of 'right' to 'defend' stolen property. The right belongs to the person fighting for its return, as the Palestinians have been doing daily since 1948. Aside from the 5–6% of land acquired by Zionist purchasing agencies before 1948, Israelis are living on and in stolen property. They will defend it, but they have no 'right' to defend something that, by any legal, moral, historical, or cultural measure, belongs to someone else. This has never been a 'conflict of rights' as 'liberal' Zionists have claimed, because a right is a right and cannot conflict with another right. The real rights in this context are evident, or would be, if they were not persistently suppressed by Western governments and a media that unconditionally safeguards Israel's actions. Although the non-binding UNGA partition resolution of that year did not include a 'transfer' of the Palestinian population, the creation of a Jewish state would have been more challenging without it. Without the expulsion of indigenous Palestinians, the demographic composition of the 'Jewish state' would have included an equal number of Palestinian Muslims and Christians alongside Jews. War was the sole means of getting rid of Palestinian natives; raw force achieved what Theodor Herzl envisioned when he referred to “spiriting” the “penniless population” from their land. Upon its completion, Weizmann expressed excitement regarding this "miraculous simplification of our task." Following 1948, there were massacres in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jordan; massacres in Lebanon; and wars and assassinations throughout the region and beyond. A second wave of ethnic cleansing succeeded the 1948 one in 1967, and now a third and fourth wave is taking place in Gaza and southern Lebanon, terrorizing and slaughtering town dwellers and villagers into fleeing. https://preview.redd.it/orxl88k6mfoe1.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12103a2b560e3af2f72c656e6e39fdbea64caa11 Western governments and the media are facilitating the gradual, covert, illegal, and pseudo-legal erosion of Palestinian life and rights in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It is remarkable how the media constantly discusses October 7 but never talks about any of this critical history. Of course, as an accomplice to one of the biggest crimes of the 20th century, meticulously orchestrated and executed violently, discussing it candidly would entail self-incrimination; thus, it diverts the discourse to alternative subjects—''Hamas terrorism'', ''October 7''—anything to distract from Israel's egregious war crimes. This distortion of the narrative has persisted since the PLO and the popular fronts of the 1960s were labeled as terrorists, while Israel was portrayed as a plucky small state merely defending itself. The Poles, the French, and other Europeans opposed the Nazi occupation. The distinction is clear: resistance to occupation by Palestinians is labeled as terrorism, while state-sponsored terrorism is characterized as 'self-defense.' This distortion of truth has been outrageously amplified following the pager/walkie-talkie terrorist acts perpetrated by Israel in Lebanon. Western governments and their connected media entities have rationalized and even lauded them. The Palestinians demonstrated their readiness to transcend the events of 1948 and to make significant concessions for peace —22 percent of the land in exchange for relinquishing 78 percent—provided Israel would engage sincerely with the rights of the 1948 generation; nevertheless, Israel ignored their offers contemptuously. The Palestinians were willing to share Jerusalem, but Israel was not receptive to this proposition. It had consistently desired all of Palestine. The Netanyahu government, seeing no need for such concealment, now unveils the truth that the 1990s 'peace process' and previous proposals from various diplomatic entities obscured. It explicitly states its desires, regardless of the opinions of others, including former partners, which align with the initial aspirations of the Zionist movement: all of Palestine, ideally devoid of Palestinians. Israel's refusal to cede any portion of Palestine has blurred the distinctions between the pre- and post-1967 eras. There are no delineating green lines between occupied and unoccupied territories, only the red lines that Israel transgresses daily. Deprived of even a small portion of their homeland, Palestinians and their supporters are compelled to resort to resistance and are resolute in their pursuit of reclaiming all of 1948 Palestine, rather than merely the limited fraction they previously would have accepted. Western countries facilitate and even promote Israel's existence outside international law by providing arms and financial assistance. Israel's occupation, massacres, and assassinations occur because of Western governments' tacit approval and encouragement. If Israel commits genocide, it is due to Western nations' acquiescence and implicit endorsement. If Israel is condemning itself to endless war with those whose fundamental rights it has infringed upon for the past 76 years, it is due to Western governments' acceptance. They have allowed Israel to push the world to the brink of regional and even global conflict. Israel is chaotic, yet it has never been orderly. The West has also permitted this, and it will face consequences.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: It is all about 1948. It's not about October 7, 1956, 1967, 1982, 2008, 2014 or any other date on wh...

Mar 15, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks