How to make a big picture symbol on fb

Why would anyone in their right mind buy this based off your review alone? You haven’t even used it yet!! So much to unpack in barely ten seconds.
1– girl you think that tiny ass clasp is for a DIAPER BAG? At least read the manual. Even without seeing it up close I’d bet it’s for the roll up shade or to extend the back cover. It’s a clasp. It’s joining another clasp end. It’s not going to hold a heavy ass diaper bag. Terrible salesman.
2– “looks exactly like our other stroller which was so expensive” sooooo why’d you buy it? Your super $$ stroller converts into this exact stroller shape, but of course you didn’t read the instructions on that one either. You thought it came with a damn bassinet for overnight sleep.
3– Neither of you understand SPF/UPF coverage? It’s like you don’t know how to read. Research it! You’re becoming parents!! Gabe could benefit from learning about UVA/UVB rays with his purple skin, and Grue has been sunburned multiple times while pregnant. This poor baby is going to have zero sun protection. She’s going to put little cutesie sleeveless outfits on and try to make her wear sunglasses and a big floppy hat for pictures and just call it a day. Sorry Blanca, we’re trying boo-boo.
4– Cupholder 👍🏼 got it. No one needed an extra video on the cup holder alone. What about the important stuff like brakes or secure seatbelt or good wheels, etc. Nope! We need a good cup holder for our 835 daily drinks. (Little does she know you can just buy a dang cup holder for your car seat) but THAT was the selling point?

Because people don't make enough theories about novels, here's a short theory about them.
As we learn at the end of TFC, Charlie does not have a soul of human origin since she is an agony creature/an object infected by agony (I know it’s debatable, but it doesn’t really matter for this theory). Her memories therefore come from after the creation of her main bodies (after 1983) as well as from fictitious scenes staged by Henry to make his daughter believe that she had a life during the period of the creation of her body. As clarified by Elizabeth, before Charlie had a body, her memories were either those of Henry or memories made by Henry.
Basically, she has three types of memories:

1. Charliebot's direct memories (for example, the events of TSE or her memories of childhood spent with her friends), the equivalent of our human memories. We know that Henry has access to these memories and can suppress or modify any memories he wants.
2. Memories made by Henry, who used camera recordings that he filmed himself (for example, some of her memories spent in her father's workshop).
3. Memories from Henry himself that Charlie absorbed as any agony entity would (for example, Henry crying with his daughter on the hill or Henry discussing with Jen about Charlotte’s ghost).

So far so good, it's logical, and all of the memories from this time could have been created by Henry without too many problems (since they are mainly memories of Henry working in his workshop alongside his daughter).
These fabricated memories therefore certainly date from the year 1983, or even 1982. We know that Charlotte was reported missing in October 1982 (or it was retconned in 1983, whatever) and that she was buried in 1983, which leads us to believe that Henry began his experiments around this period. In addition, Charlie mentions knowing her friends quite well when she was a child and was around them for at least two years (she mentions in TSE a passage of time of two years between the first and the last time she invited John to her house), meaning that they spent a few years together. So the period where Henry must have falsely manifested the presence of his daughter must not have lasted many years either, therefore easily explaining how he was able to stage everything without much difficulty for Charlie's memories after 1982 and before she got a body (it was only a matter of a few months).
This is all well and good, but what about memories from before Charlotte’s death?
At first, we can say that they should not be very complicated to reproduce either and that they are staged by Henry. They are mostly childhood memories, after all—basic memories from early childhood. But it raises some inconsistencies. Certainly, Henry could have recreated memories where he and his daughter talk at the Fredbear despite the place having fallen into ruin, but recreate a memory where his entire family is present? It gets harder... This is definitely not the second category. So these are probably memories belonging directly to Henry, right? And yes, it already works better. Charlie could just remember family moments and father-daughter moments via Henry's own memory by having his own feelings superimposed on hers. Except... what about the scenes where Henry is not present? The scenes that only take place between Sammy and Charlie or between Charlie and her mother (well, I have to admit, it’s not like there were a lot of scenes between Charlie and “her” mom—there’s only one for them in the entire trilogy), and where Henry is undeniably absent? What do we do with them?
And then, it must be said that the fact that Charlie so easily differentiates her feelings and those of her father, even when they are quite distinct, is a little strange. Since when do agony entities feel the emotions of a person attached to their victim and not of the person themselves? When Henry puts his rage into the fourth Charliebot, he didn’t put the rage he imagined the robot was feeling; he put his own rage. It's kinda weird. So yes, Charlie was able to reinterpret the memories, but to this extent? I’m not that shocked because… it’s Charlie. She’s already a bit of an exception, and she also seems to already interpret things in her own way, as seen in the memory on the hill and in the memory where Henry is talking to Jen about Ella, but still.
And above all… Charlie remembers her kidnapping. Or rather, the kidnapping of her brother who is in fact her sister (it quickly becomes complicated). It can't be a memory of Henry; he wasn't there. That's clear. We are therefore left with the second solution: Henry recreated this memory by filming the scene. At first, it seemed coherent. Henry just changed the fact that it was Sammy who was kidnapped and not Charlie, which explains this change without creating any inconsistency.
Except, first, that means Henry got up one morning and decided to shoot a film of his daughter's death (aaaand... surprisingly, now that I think about it, it's completely something that Henry could do. Well, I'm still putting it here because it's really twisted). Next, how to shoot this scene without Sammy? Well, fortunately, there is a fairly simple solution for that. Henry has conditioned his daughter to consider that the person she misses and who was kidnapped is her brother. We know that Henry can manipulate his daughter's point of view to a certain extent, and that could quite clearly be what happened in this case. As an adult, Charlie immediately thinks that her instincts to go into her closet and commit suicide are a manifestation of her brother (which is false). Likewise, Henry had no problem making her forget the fact that Sammy moved into the new house with them. So yes, if the scene is actually filmed, a young child would be needed to play the role of Sammy, but Sammy himself is not necessarily required. Which leads us to the question of which kid did Henry take to play in his macabre roleplay where he would have played the role of his daughter's murderer?
Another major problem: Charlie remembers being face-to-face with Spring Bonnie. How could Henry have known that his child was kidnapped by William when the case was never solved (I mean, Sammy could have talked about it, but if that were the case, why is Henry still friends with William if William is the number one suspect?)? And can we talk about the precision of the scene? Charlie's false memories are moments where she does not interact with her surroundings (for relatively obvious reasons such as a camera can’t talk and doesn’t have arms), unlike this memory where Charlie interacts with Sammy.
And then seriously. Why did Henry create such an atrocious scene?
For realism?
No one remembers the conditions of “Sammy’s” death in any case. People don’t even know he’s not dead at Hurricane. Why not pretend that his daughter was not present during the kidnapping or make her believe that she has forgotten this horrible memory?
Because he believes Charlie has the right to witness a realistic version?
First, this is not Henry's mentality at all (he’s the guy who lived in total denial for two years) and then Elizabeth directly says that the false memories serve to maintain the illusion that Charlie is a happy child and absolutely not a paranormal entity traumatized by her father's negligence and the incomprehension of her condition.
“He made memories for you; creating a life for her little rag doll, making her a real little girl. I am sure that many of these memories were carefully crafted and embellished (...)”
—Elizabeth, TFC
I also want to point out that Henry altered Charlie's memories in 1985 (before his suicide) to force her to forget every trace of Afton. We know that’s the case because William had already met Charlie before and probably studied her with Henry, but Charlie doesn’t even remember seeing him before in TSE. Henry is the only character who can manipulate Charlie's memories, so he’s the one who did it, even if his motives aren’t very clear.
Maybe Charlie just imagined the scene herself then?
Yes, but no. Firstly, because she would need to have cosmic gifts to guess that William was disguised as Spring Bonnie, and then because it's not really Charlie's habit to invent memories, even for events of which she is aware and which she could more easily recreate (for example, the separation with her mother, which Charlie finds strange not to remember, but she never reinvented a memory herself).
Just inconsistency and negligence on the part of the authors?
Yes, there is probably that. But now that it's in the final book, we can't just ignore the problem.
And this is where I propose my theory: Charlie's memories from before 1982 do not come from scenes created by Henry, nor even from Henry's memories; they come from Charlotte. I'm not talking about Charlotte's soul itself, I'm talking about agony or rather feelings in our context.
As explained by our friend Phineas in the FF, in the Fnaf universe, objects in our environment can absorb the emotional energies that we, beings of flesh and blood, produce. Phineas mainly focuses on negative emotions and feelings since he considers them to be the most powerful emotions in the world of Fnaf, which I absolutely disagree with, but it has little importance here. The important thing is that we introduce energy into receptacles unintentionally.
“[Human emotions] emanate from us or are excreted from us, if you will, like sweat or tears, and it wafts outward like a noxious cloud, soaking into the surroundings.” —Phineas, Epilogue 1:35AM
However, these feelings are not necessarily negative. They can be positive as it's suggested in the novels when Charlie says she believes in ghosts and Marla adds by talking about her own experiences in certain places which seemed to give off a positive energy. It is even quite logical with the fact that Henry's denial is an emotion powerful enough to feed the entity that is Charlie (even if denial isn't really suffering), and the fact that David seems to be able to put happiness into the Mimic even when he wasn’t aware yet.
So.
Wouldn't it be normal for the very strong feelings that emanate from a young child to be stored in an object that they rarely part with? More precisely, an object that contains very strong feelings to the point that they can be considered a source of energy would have every chance of being a transitional object, an object that toddlers use to develop emotionally and have a first control of their emotions—a cuddly toy.
Do you have any memories from your childhood? Probably. Do you have an object that reminds you of it? It could be anything, a book, a toy, a stuffed animal. You know, that object that appears in old photographs. Personally, I had a rabbit plush that I never let go of. It is an object that accompanied me in my childhood wherever I went, offering me comfort when I needed it, and I spent hours playing with it. Now, let's take a look back at Charlie's memories of her early childhood. These are pleasant moments that can mark a young child, almost exclusively moments of play and rest. Moments spent at Fredbear's, moments in the car... The kind of moments where it would be normal for a young child to have a toy, a plushie... maybe a doll? You understand where I'm going with this.
I mean, it's not like it’s an unknown concept in Fnaf. We can think of Simon, who talks to Jake and is not haunted by a soul, or even Tyler's Tag Along Freddy. And I will pass on the theories which propose a solution based on agony concerning Fredbear Plush in Fnaf 4.
When Elizabeth talks about her life (and death) to Charlie, she talks about her Charlizabeth phase in a very specific way: Charlizabeth's body received emotions but wasn’t able to interpret them before gaining consciousness.
“Of course, I could not comprehend those memories until I had received a soul of my own (...). Once I had endowed myself with a soul, I experienced those memories anew: not as an uncomprehending toy, twitching and seizing with an all-consuming rage I could not fathom, but as a person.” —Elizabeth, TFC
This is where it gets interesting. This is exactly what happens to Charlie regarding her old memories. They are memories that she has reinterpreted. Charlie is not a robot; she is originally a rag doll. And… well, in the end, we don’t know much about this rag doll. Her name is Ella, or Henry renamed her Ella, it's not very clear (not to be confused with the Ella doll, I know it's very confusing, but the doll we're talking about was not built by Henry). It was an object purchased in a shop rather than being made by Henry, and above all, it was a toy that belonged to Charlotte (biological Henry’s daughter, I mean).
Now what's interesting is that Henry cried into this object for days and nights, no doubt because it reminded him of his daughter. Even once the shock stage had passed and the denial stage approached, Henry did not part with the doll and kept it in his workshop on a chair. I would like to point out that this happened when Henry did not believe that his daughter's soul was in the doll but believed that Charlotte's soul was in another doll (the other doll also called Ella but which was created by Henry, the one we see in the novels). So if he keeps the doll displayed like this at home, it is probably because it has a very strong personal connection to Henry, and it was an important toy in the eyes of his daughter.
Let's imagine that this doll was Charlotte's cuddly toy, an object that she regularly kept with her and for which she reserved particular importance. The doll was able to integrate the emotions, feelings, and memories of its owner like any object in the world of Fnaf, without being animated by a conscience—a conscience that would only develop when Henry put all his negative feelings and his love for his deceased daughter into it (feelings obviously much more raw and powerful than the simple emotions of a toddler).
Now, let's go back to the memories in question. Charlie remembers the times spent with family, since she was with her family but in the form of a toy. She remembers the moments between Henry and Charlotte since she was with Charlotte and Charlotte's interpretation of the world was transmitted into her doll. Charlie remembers the play scenes between Charlotte and Sammy since Charlotte was playing with her. Which leads us to the kidnapping scene that Charlie remembers.
As for Elizabeth, the memory is a reinterpretation that Charlie carries out on Charlotte's feelings during her kidnapping. Not everything is real since Charlie was then influenced by her father (just as all of her other memories are biased. Charlie thinks she IS Charlotte the little girl when she was just her doll, a bit like how she identifies herself as Charlie in the memories she inherited from Henry, instead of interpreting them as being Henry himself).
Charlie is traumatized by this event, truly traumatized. Because Henry himself was traumatized by the event or for another reason? What traumatized Charlie the most was the figurative mutilation she suffered when her “brother” was taken from her, but her brother was never taken from her. Could the trauma not come from the brutal separation from her owner? It is also interesting to note that once Charlotte was kidnapped by William, Charlie only remembers the events very very vaguely and only vividly remembers the moment when her father got her back (the moment when Henry intervened and Henry was able to transmit his own memories to the doll). Before the kidnapping, Charlotte and Sammy were going to sleep (a situation where kids often have a plush or a doll with them), and we know that Sammy had a toy during the kidnapping. Moreover, if Charlotte was indeed separated from her doll during her kidnapping, this explains Henry's obsessive behavior towards his daughter's toy: it was the last object she had before disappearing, totally the type of object on which a father incapable of mourning would become obsessed.
To sum up my idea:

• Charlie is also influenced by Charlotte’s feelings.
• Henry (and William and Elizabeth, who based their work on Henry’s) doesn’t know this (he stopped caring about Charlie after he understood that she wasn’t Charlotte after all).
• All of Charlie’s memories from before Charlotte’s death mainly came from Charlotte’s own memories.

Or in a form of a timeline :
https://preview.redd.it/me5uz2xxve1d1.png?width=722&format=png&auto=webp&s=27b372a8eb6605752f059e61a13836758b329dfe
Two things to quickly add about this.
Firstly, in a more general sense about the series, this reinforces a certain link between the three main agony entities (whether they are creatures created solely from emotions or those possessing objects) in the series: Charlie, Eleanor, and the Mimic. If we consider that the backstory about the pendant mentioned by Talbert has any connection with Eleanor (which is rather implied) and that she (or at least her physical body) was created/re-used by Talbert (already more debatable, but I believe it's a fairly widespread theory about Eleanor? I’ll leave it to those who know better to discuss this in the comments), it seems relatively interesting that the three most conscious entities purely constituted of agony that we know of are all objects that were linked to a child before being infected by more violent emotions from an adult. It might be a silly remark; I haven't delved deeply into Eleanor's character for this lol.
Secondly, regarding the novels: the memory of Charlotte’s kidnapping could be the element that made Henry realize that William was indeed the person who kidnapped his daughter. TFC suggests that Henry understood before the MCI that William was his daughter’s murderer (notably because he seems to recover Charlizabeth before the children's disappearances). I generally assumed that Henry realized the truth about William when the latter stole the fourth Charlie model, but it would indeed make more sense for Henry to understand via an external event.
The trigger event between William and Henry is not William’s theft. After all, William has no valid reason to suddenly betray Henry and jeopardize his cover and his restaurant project with the Twisteds, just to steal an unfinished model (if he could, he would probably have stolen the third model, which was likely much more advanced and even maybe finished). Henry would have understood by visualizing Charlie’s memories or she might have mentioned the memory to her father. Henry would have turned against William, and in the panic, the latter would have returned to steal the only model easily available. This also explains why Henry didn’t tell the police that he knew William was responsible for the MCI and his daughter’s death even though he was convinced of it: revealing his undeniable proof would mean exposing the true nature of his daughter.
Well, that’s all from me!
(Btw, I wanted to add pictures from the graphic novels but couldn't because they actually didn't understand the twist and represented the ragdoll as classic Ella. Seriously I hate these books).

https://www.reddit.com/AITAH/s/B7ISV4qZn9