[apallo creed]

OK - Based on the responses to PART I, I'm going to guess that no one will buy this theory, but I felt that as a fan of the show, I have to post it - if I have to be odd man out here, so be it. Also, the term EVERYONE was not meant to offend anyone - just using it as a hook to draw people in. With that . . .

There's been a lot of speculation about Sylar and after reading a lot of posts about him, I believe I've figured it out. Yes I know so does everyone else who has a Sylar theory.

This theory on Sylar has some holes in it which I'll attempt to fill as I go along (It's rather long winded, but please read on) - You could consider this a spoiler so I'll forwarn everyone:

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

SYLAR IS NOT THE VILLIAN - SYLAR IS NOT THE KILLER.

At this point I'm imagining a unanimous cry of "You're Wrong!" (or something along those lines - maybe even a few explitives thrown in for good measure).

If you don't believe me you can stop reading here and go on with your day. I believe this makes perfect sense however and here's why:

When Sylar was confronted by Matt and Audrey (the FBI lady), he could have easily killed them (as was apparent by the powers he displayed - throwing Audrey and having her hold the gun to her head - he was just warning her to back off). With his powers, he also could have killed the girl even before they got there (probably could have done it without anyone in the building even knowing). If Sylar was the killer and he wanted to finish the job and kill the girl, he would have done it even if it meant killing Matt and Audrey. I believe he was actually trying to save the girl at that point. When Matt and the Audrey got there, there was at least one person dead (I think actually 2). I believe the killer came into the building, killed the 2 guards, was going to kill the girl and Sylar was in the process of saving her when Matt and FBI showed up. I know, where did the killer go? I'm guessing he either has an invisible power and was still there, or he flew out of there very fast. Another point - the girl thinks "How did he find me?" (Matt hears this). "He" doesn't necessarily mean Sylar - I think "He" is referring to the killer (not Sylar). - Remember - we never actually saw Sylar kill anyone - FBI only says he did.

Which leads to the next part of the theory. If Sylar is not the killer then who is? I'm still kind of up in the air about this one, but I believe the number one suspect is Nathan (the politician). You're probably saying I'm way off base here: Well ask yourself this - What do Hiro, Matt, Niki, Isaac, Peter, and Clair all have in common? (Notice I didn't mention Nathan).

The anwer: They all wanted to tell someone about their new found power. Hiro couldn't wait to tell his friend Ando, Matt told Audrey (FBI), Isaac told his girlfriend Simone, Peter told Nathan, Claire told the guy from school who video taped her, and even Niki (although still trying to figure things out) made a lame attempt to tell her sister. Why would Nathan want to keep his power hidden? If you discovered you could fly, would you hide it? You'd want to tell someone (at least one person you trust)! It wasn't until Nathan was forced to reveal his power (and until Nathan was able to use Peter to his advantage) did he tell Peter - and even then he wanted to hide it. Think about the quote from "The Usual Suspects," - "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was getting the world to believe he didn't exist." I'm not saying Nathan's the devil, but Nathan's definately a bad apple - Suspect Number One - maybe not the killer but definately not on the "good" side. I believe that if Sylar is Patient Zero, maybe Nathan is Patient One and knows Sylar (or knows of him) - and is also trying to frame him (yes I know it's cliche, but think about it - it works). Who could have gotten Sylars name to the police in the first place, who could influence a case such as this - someone with political connections. Nathan's a bad egg in my book!

Which leads to the third part of the theory - Sylars apartment. This is a tough one, and still has holes (I can't explain the writing on the wall) but I think I figured out at least the second map. Sylar was working with Mohinders dad. Mohinder's dad was finding the "good" people, Sylar was finding the "bad". It explains why Nathan's picture was on his map. If the map on Sylars wall contained "bad" people, it would follow the typical superhero formula - superheroes are always outnumbered - remember Mohinder said something like "this map contains more locations than my fathers."

Finally, I think to have Sylar not be the killer would be a HUGE PLOT TWIST. This show is going to have some major twists to keep everyone's interest. What better twist, what better shock than to have all the signs pointing to Sylar saying "Sylar's the killer" and then in the end saying "We tricked you - Sylar's not the killer". Think about it. Pretty much all the posts thus far have been saying that Sylar is the killer. What if he's really their Savior?

[BaseballerX]

Speaking of the dark side, is Sylar a villain HEROES will be following all season long?

Tim Kring: On a show called HEROES, you need a villain, and it’s safe to assume that Sylar has been presented as the season’s major villain. The bodies with heads cut off are not coincidences. There is a method to Sylar’s ‘madness’, and he does present a genuine threat to our Heroes.

http://thetvaddict.com/?p=959

That right there is Tim Kring saying Sylar is the main villain of season one so i dont really need to follow anything else you said. Theres a longer verision of the interview somewhere else, i'll see if i can find it.

[Marcos]

I'm sorry, but we've got proof to the contrary right here
I think you're really seeing for something that just isn't there, I mean, granted, we never hear what is supposed to be Syler speak, or see the people get killed, but even a cop who failed the detective exam could piece this one together; Occam's razor.


I don't think Nate is evil, well...he's a politician, but I don't think he's that evil, he didn't tell anyone because, as much as he would like it to not be true, Peter knows, and Nate still hasn't come to terms with it, he doesn't really want it (yet :wink: ) and he doesn't have a clue what to do about it, so he just hides it, he wants to win his election, that's what he wants, not to fly or be a hero. So he hides it, many people would, to avoid just being labled a freak, not to mention win a congressional election.

[SureshIcantell]

I like the way Apallo is thinking, though. And I'm sure Tim Kring is going to tell us the truth every time he speaks? He could definitely use the "writer's discretion" excuse and fool us all.

[Super Ordinary Guy]

The evidence against Sylar is overwhelming. Not only do we have nearly every recent interview telling people that Sylar is the major villain, but we also have the taped phone conversation in episode 2 between Chandra Suresh and Sylar. Chandra called him a murderer, and Sylar didn't exactly dispute that claim.

As for Nathan being the bad guy, well he is a politician. However, when you visit THIS site you will see GRAPHIC NOVEL THREE: NATHAN (A terrible inferno can melt the coldest of hearts.) Nathan uses his power to try to save a girl from a burning building. It's kinda hard to be in LA killing people while trying to run for Congress.

Now, Sylar could be someone we've seen before. Maybe, just MAYBE, Nathan and Sylar are one in the same but I highly doubt it. If anyone from the main cast is Sylar, my money would be on Peter although I highly doubt it. The only reason why I would even contemplate that possibility is due to seeing Peter being able to copy Heroes powers when he is in close proximity. What would Peter be able to do if he ate the area of the brain responsible for their powers? Now, what if Peter's dreaming is really the evil part of his psyche taking control while Peter isn't aware?

Do I think Peter is evil? I dunno. Do I think Peter is Sylar? I don't think so. Am I the first person to come up with the idea that Peter might not be a true hero? Nope. I believe Tob first got me thinking that Peter could be bad. In fact, Tob was actually the first person I know who correctly figured Peter had a power similar to that of Rogue from X-Men. Would that be cool, for a bad Peter? Yes I think it would be if done right.

[BaseballerX]

Originally Posted by Super Ordinary Guy

The evidence against Sylar is overwhelming. Not only do we have nearly every recent interview telling people that Sylar is the major villain, but we also have the taped phone conversation in episode 2 between Chandra Suresh and Sylar. Chandra called him a murderer, and Sylar didn't exactly dispute that claim.

As for Nathan being the bad guy, well he is a politician. However, when you visit THIS site you will see GRAPHIC NOVEL THREE: NATHAN (A terrible inferno can melt the coldest of hearts.) Nathan uses his power to try to save a girl from a burning building. It's kinda hard to be in LA killing people while trying to run for Congress.

Now, Sylar could be someone we've seen before. Maybe, just MAYBE, Nathan and Sylar are one in the same but I highly doubt it. If anyone from the main cast is Sylar, my money would be on Peter although I highly doubt it. The only reason why I would even contemplate that possibility is due to seeing Peter being able to copy Heroes powers when he is in close proximity. What would Peter be able to do if he ate the area of the brain responsible for their powers? Now, what if Peter's dreaming is really the evil part of his psyche taking control while Peter isn't aware?

Do I think Peter is evil? I dunno. Do I think Peter is Sylar? I don't think so. Am I the first person to come up with the idea that Peter might not be a true hero? Nope. I believe Tob first got me thinking that Peter could be bad. In fact, Tob was actually the first person I know who correctly figured Peter had a power similar to that of Rogue from X-Men. Would that be cool, for a bad Peter? Yes I think it would be if done right.

SOG, you're one of the few people on here that ever makes sense. Thats the same kinda thing i've been trying to get out for a while but haven't been able to put it in words. But every time i do actually word something right, someone else comes up with something crazy and has nothing to back it up. Thank you for being my relief to common sense cause i sure as hell can't do it on my own. lol

[Super Ordinary Guy]

I really appreciate the compliment, but I would argue that there are a lot of people on this forum who have a great deal of common sense. For instance, in this thread I would have to agree with Marcos wholeheartedly. Many hear have some great ideas, which I love reading about. Plus, it doesn’t hurt to hear someone out. I like that apallo creed has questioned something we take for granted. It is a new way of thinking about something which I never would’ve considered. Now, I believe the evidence is fully on the side of Sylar being the bad guy, but every now and then it’s a good thing to think outside the box.

Part of apallo’s argument I really can’t disprove. To me, I question why Sylar didn’t kill the girl or confront Matt and Audrey. One of Sylar’s power, according to Greg Beeman HERE, is psychic control over people. So, Sylar controlled Audrey to put the gun up to her head, but not to pull the trigger. Why? Maybe, Audrey was able to fight him enough that he couldn’t get her to pull the trigger. Why didn’t Sylar kill the girl? I think it has to do with her having a power and wanting to kill her ritually which he didn’t have enough time for ritual. After getting shot at, I wonder why Sylar didn’t confront Matt or Audrey. Surely a mere human and a telepath wouldn’t be a match for Sylar. I might say that Sylar realized that backup was going to arrive soon, it is FBI HQ in LA after all, and he didn’t feel like putting forth the effort needed to kill everyone. However, the questions raised by apallo are valid ones, and the only difference is that apallo and I choose to interpret them differently. Since all the evidence points to Sylar being the serial killer, I tend to disbelieve any interpretations that would go against such evidence.