This wiki is a XML full dump clone of "Heroes Wiki", the main wiki about the Heroes saga that has been shut down permanently since June 1, 2020. The purpose of this wiki is to keep online an exhaustive and accurate database about the franchise.

Talk:Samuel Sullivan

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archives Archived Topics
Oct 2009-Jan 2010 SureI think we've

Power enhancement

There weren't any evolved humans within his immediate vicinity when he pulled that town into the earth. Does this mean that the carnival was simply close enough to him (which seems unlikely given its distance), or that he somehow retains the power he absorbs from other evolved humans?--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 22:42, 18 January 2010 (EST)

  • You could see the town he was from the carnival, so I think that he was close enough to benefit from the power-up. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 07:43, 19 January 2010 (EST)
    • I thought that was the haven he built for Vanessa that he destroyed? --mc_hammark 08:02, 19 January 2010 (EST)
      • He's at the ice-cream place when he starts using his ability, it's in a town. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 08:26, 19 January 2010 (EST)
        • But the whole place collapsed, he'd be dead. And I don't think it would matter where he was if he wanted to destroy it. --mc_hammark 08:28, 19 January 2010 (EST)
          • Maybe he can use his ability to "swim" through earth, for lack of better term? Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 08:29, 19 January 2010 (EST)
            • Or perhaps he's naturally just quite strong even without being surrounded by specials? He wrecked his birth home with only Peter near him, after all. Swm 08:40, 19 January 2010 (EST)
            • He may have left a single pillar of earth under him when he dragged the town underground. And if he's naturally that strong without specials, it's scary to think of how powerful he is surrounded by the carnies.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:17, 19 January 2010 (EST)


I can't believe that I'm going to say it, but i think we found a guy who is more powerful then Sylar...-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 11:40, 21 January 2010 (EST)

  • I've been shouting this from the rooftops since we learned that his power could be enhanced. I mean, he dragged an entire friggin town into the earth.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:17, 21 January 2010 (EST)
    • Sylar is more powerfull on small scale, with that i mean on the field. But on big scale Samuel is far more powerfull-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 16:16, 21 January 2010 (EST)
      • Though Arthur was arguably more powerful than Sylar once he took Peter's abilities, Samuel's power level seems insane at times. Even when he's both alone and calm he sinks buildings into the earth. When angry entire towns get sunk, and he doesn't seem too shabby in 1 vs 1 combat either, as it's implied that tornado of earth he summoned would have killed Sylar if he hadn't been able to regenerate. It'll be interesting to see how he dies if Heroes stays true to form and decides to off its newest villian at the end of his Volume (or at the start of the next one, like Danko and Adam). Swm 12:28, 22 January 2010 (EST)
        • Well thats just it, he has RCG. And i think that Sylar is faster with his TK then Samuel's terra. But i think that Sylar is stronger then Samuel in 1 VS. 1, but with large thinks like towns or something, Samuel is far more powerfull.-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 13:07, 22 January 2010 (EST)
          • TK wouldn't stop Samuel from using his power, so unless he slits his throat in seconds (which may not be possible) it's a somewhat even fight. Personally, I think Samuel would win but that is by no means conclusive.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:35, 22 January 2010 (EST)
            • Sylar had Samuel pinned against the wall when they fought before, right? But even if he went directly for the kill (either throat or brain) Samuel could probably make the earth swallow him up in the process. Hmm. Definetely tough to call, that one. Swm 20:17, 22 January 2010 (EST)
              • He did, so Samuel doesn't seem need his feet on the ground in order to use his ability. The way I see it, Samuel was waiting to see what Sylar would do before he sandstorm'ed him. He was trying to convince Sylar to join them, but was prepared to kill if necessary.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 22:42, 22 January 2010 (EST)
                • Sylar is not powerful enough to stop Samuel, but how about Matt? I think he could just go inside Samuel's head and convince him to stop or just prevent him from using his ability.--GregorZ 14:07, 26 January 2010 (EST)
                  • It depends on whether he surprised him or not. If Samuel knew what was going on before Matt throughly affected him he could obliterate Matt in a second.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:32, 26 January 2010 (EST)
                    • Sylar is more powerfull, same as peter would be with his old power, no comparing possible with Samuel and Sylar -- (WaterRatj) 15:48, 26 January 2010 (EST)
                      • I think Sylar has the edge in 1 vs 1 combat. His Rapid cell regeneration makes him very hard to kill, and he has many offensive powers to Samuel's one. OTOH, Sylar's never done anything close to burying an entire town.--Cro Magnon 12:34, 27 January 2010 (EST)
                        • I'd call Sylar power-full and Samuel powerful. lol :) --mc_hammark 12:52, 27 January 2010 (EST)
                          • I agree. having multiple abilities may not be the ultimate deciding factor. I'd doubt Sylar would be much different if he only had TK and RCR.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 14:31, 27 January 2010 (EST)
  • Sylar doesn't tend to use all of his abilities even when he does fight. I mean, he's never used sound manipulation except for once in a GN. Literally, never. We don't know the limits of disintegration, but given Sylar usually wants the brain in one piece to gain more powers, he normally wouldn't use it even if it did work on humans. Same applies to alchemy, because even though it has offensive properties a golden brain is useless to him, and the rest of his powers have little to no combat application, save maybe Flight. The only other "battle" power he tends to use apart from the ever-present RCR and TK is his lightning. Therefore, the multiple power issue seems to be less of a factor then we might think. If Sylar didn't have Claire's power, he'd stand very little chance. Swm 16:23, 27 January 2010 (EST)
    • I don't know, a golden brain would make quite a trophy. Seriously however, you have great point. Even Claire's power wouldn't help him if he was buried beneath the earth.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 16:32, 27 January 2010 (EST)
      • True, but it would keep him alive while he dug himself out with TK.--Cro Magnon 16:38, 27 January 2010 (EST)
        • Based on what happened to Adam, he'd die constantly while trying to "dig" his way out. And I think if Samuel buried him miles beneath the earth (which doesn't sound outlandish, given what he's already done), TK probably wouldn't help him. Of course, this is all besides the fact that if Samuel removed Sylar's head, RCR would not bring him back.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 16:43, 27 January 2010 (EST)
          • No I think Samuel will come out ontop. SYlar is powerful, but has a terrible track record in 1 on 1. He tied with Elle and Peter(the first time when Pete tossed him off the cliff). Beat Peter the second time. Loss to Peter at kirby plaza, thanks to Niki, loss in season 3, and volume 4( not really a fight, but still). And now in season 4. Not to mention knox beat him pretty bad until the kid died, who he was using to become stronger, thus making him powerless. I think Doyle is the only one, besides Peter, and Claire, who he actually fought one on one and won. Sylar, is kinda cowardly. He stalks u, finds u then, taunts u a little, before killing u. Most of his victim don't even know about their powers, or very little. Some like Ted are bound, or don't have the power like Issac or Eden, to fight back. But he rarely battles anyone straight up. Seeing as he lost to Noah who is trained without his powers. And Mohinder( with his powers). Arthur even had him suspended in the air. Sam power appears to be quicker, such as killing Mohinder, and his brother, within seconds. While Sylar basically tortures u, by pinning u to the wall, then cutting of your head. As said before he only has lighting, and flight, that are offensive. He seldomly uses his powers. And TK, which he over uses. I think Sam will win, but the writers, will prolly have Peter, or hiro defeat him. Seeing as they've defeated many villians. --Debrah 13:45, 31 January 2010 (EST)
  • Sylar can do the same things as Samuel with telekinesis. Oh, and don't forget his secret weapon - disintegration.--Boycool42 18:21, 17 February 2010 (EST)
    • We've no proof disintegration works on humans. And besides, Sylar would never use that power for the same reason he'd never use alchemy in a fight- it makes the brain useless to him, or now that he's good because he doesn't want to kill people. Sylar can't do nearly the same feats as Samuel is able to do- I very much doubt telekinesis would let Sylar sink buildings, for one thing. Swm 18:43, 17 February 2010 (EST)
      • Alchemy doesn't necessarily means the brain is toast, Bob could turn only parts of people into gold remember? No reason to think the same wouldn't apply to disintegration. It would be fun to see Sylar get bored, disintegrate his hand/arm just to see it growing back. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:51, 17 February 2010 (EST)
        • He could? Oops, my mistake. Perhaps there is a useful combat application there then. I really don't think Sylar will ever use disintegration (it's like sound manipulation), so I guess we'll never figure out it's limits. Swm 19:28, 17 February 2010 (EST)
        • Sylar can do whatever he wants with telekinesis. Terrakinesis - move earth; Telekinesis - move things (meaning whatever the heck you want). Telekinesis trumphs terrakinesis.--Boycool42 16:22, 19 February 2010 (EST)


Does anyone else think Samuel's descent to super villainy has been far too rapid? That he makes a much better morally gray character? Right now, he is clearly in the evil category. --User:Blood69 21:35, 2 February 2010 (AEST)

  • I disagree. He's not actually evil, even at this late stage- he's just heartbroken because Vanessa destroyed his fantasy. He feels like the world has shunned and rejected him and his kind, so now he will make it fear them so they will get respect. Swm 10:11, 2 February 2010 (EST)

He has resorted to murdering members of the Carnival without the remorse he felt by killing Joseph and even speaks derisively of a lifestyle he once embraced. He no longer cares if members of his own family dies. Burying Noah is understandable, he is or was a bigoted murderer. But he has attacked Lydia, Tracy and even tried to destroy Sylar who he attempted to recruit. No, he has lost the plot. And he is right about being shunned and rejected, but he no longer even respects his own kind. He has become Adam Monroe without the RCR. --User:Blood69 07:14, 3 February 2010 (AEST)

  • Quite so, though he seemed to regard Lydia's death as a neccessary evil (in a twisted sense) to get his family on side, much like blackmailing Edgar. I think you're right to a certain degree about the rest- he almost certainly deliberately sent Eli to his death against both Peter and Sylar, after all. To be fair, he's been saying all season that they needed to stop wandering and settle down somewhere, but his family does seem to have become the tools of his revenge at the moment. I do agree that he's lost it (seriously Samuel, you're going to make Claire watch her own father die?) but his rapid descent into madness isn't as off-putting as it would be with someone else (at least for me), because Samuel has always struck me as very intense and emotionally unstable, right from the start. Examples of this are plentiful- he sinks the police station into the earth after Jeremy's death, even though he didn't know Jeremy and he'd only lost a potential recruit. He thought Joseph was deliberately manipulating and lying to him to keep his powers from getting stronger, so he kills him in a fit of rage. The crux of this, obviously, is Vanessa and the resulting mass-murder of innocent people. So I would still argue that Samuel is not truly evil, but certainly misguided and emotionally shattered, and certainly a threat that must be dealt with. Swm 16:54, 2 February 2010 (EST)

While it is true that he has shown that he lets emotions get the better of him by the way he went overboard by destroying a small town after Vanessa rejected him, that he killed his brother Joseph in a fit of rage (though Samuels anger is understandable since his brother had betrayed him and was going to give him over to the government despite the fact that Samuel had done nothing wrong, so put yourself in his shoes, of course he was upset. Was he right to kill Joseph? No, and he deeply regretted it. But it is understandable that he was very upset because he trusted Joseph) Yes, he also went overboard that he made a house fall through a sinkhole because they wouldn't let him inside (though in fairness, he did that because he felt like they were looking down on him and shunning him, but still it was an overboard reaction that showed how he operated on runaway emotions sometimes), the destruction of the police station is a different matter, and about Samuel's philosophy and inner feelings instead. It didn't matter that he didn't personally know Jeremy and he didn't do it because he'd lost a potential recruit. He destroyed that police station because he was angry about what they did to Jeremy who was one of Samuel's own kind. Samuel hated how the world in which he lived shunned and rejected evolved humans and treated them like they were sub-human freaks. For Samuel, Jeremy's death hit hard, because it was deeply upsetting that they'd hurt and killed yet another person who was like him. He felt the same way about those hick cops like he did about Noah Bennett, the Company, and Danko. They persecuted people like him just because they were different, and that's really what Samuel's agenda started out as. He was sick and tired of living in a cruel world where they were discriminated against and persecuted. By the end of the show, he loses sight of things though, and his descent into "villainy" in those last few episodes was way too rapid, but I guess that's because the show was ending. I don't think they should have made Samuel a villain at all. He was a misunderstood person who was right about certain things (like how evolved humans should stand up against being oppressed, and how they shouldn't just resign themselves to a life as nomads in a carnival anymore), and he had good intentions. But then he lost it at the end when he started harming his own people and wanting to cause mass destruction. Heroesreborn, 18:59, 15 September 2015


Can you see...
the difference?

I'm beginning to see a pattern here... In almost every season's second half, we see a villain shave.

  • Season one: Sylar/Gabriel shaved before going to his mother.
  • Season two: I don't recall seeing Adam shave... but then again, it was only a half-season.
  • Season three: Danko was shaving when his alarm system went off (before he found Doyle tied up).
  • Season four: Samuel was shaving when Vanessa approached him outside his trailer.

I know it's just trivia (at most), but I think it's interesting nonetheless ;-).--DrIstvaan 14:54, 3 February 2010 (EST)

  • Nice catch-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 14:56, 3 February 2010 (EST)
    • yeah, and adam's could be explained by the fact his hair wouldn't grow in the first place. --mc_hammark 14:56, 3 February 2010 (EST)
      • That's never confirmed.-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 14:58, 3 February 2010 (EST)
        • Regeneration stopping facial hair growth makes no sense at all. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:01, 3 February 2010 (EST)
          • I've not seen Sylar shave at all since getting it... --mc_hammark 15:04, 3 February 2010 (EST)
            • We never see him drinking coffee in front of the tv watching his favourite tv-show neither :p -- (WaterRatj) 15:06, 3 February 2
              • In season one, a piece of Peter's hair was cut off by Sylar (the emo hair). But later that season he got it back.-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 15:07, 3 February 2010 (EST)010 (EST)
                • "A hair follicle is a part of the skin that grows hair by packing old cells together." Adam won't have old cells. (Straight from wikipedia. --mc_hammark 15:09, 3 February 2010 (EST)
                  • Sylar sometimes has no facial hair and sometimes he does. And btw about Adam, when he got out of his "grave", he clearly had more facial hair.-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 15:10, 3 February 2010 (EST)
                    • Look at these photos.-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 15:16, 3 February 2010 (EST)
                      • The second one's all blurry, so it isn't the best one to compare. --mc_hammark 15:18, 3 February 2010 (EST)
                        • I will look for a better one.-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 15:21, 3 February 2010 (EST)
                        • Nah, don't bother. I suppose it's just one of these things we'll never understand. :) But, err, just watched the scene with adam in his coffin... no facial hair... :( --mc_hammark 15:22, 3 February 2010 (EST)
  • Back to the proper topic, where would we put this trivia? --mc_hammark 15:25, 3 February 2010 (EST)
    • Dont really know... -- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 15:28, 3 February 2010 (EST)
      • Well, I didn't mean to put it into the "trivia" section of any page, just decided to share it here. If we could find a proper place for it, that'd be neat, though.--DrIstvaan 15:29, 3 February 2010 (EST)
        • It's ok to share it :) but i think it's a trivia and mc hammark also does so mabye we can find a place for it.-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 15:31, 3 February 2010 (EST)
  • What's going to happen if we have a female villain? :p--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 00:16, 7 February 2010 (EST)
    • We'll probably have her shave her legs or something. :)--mc_hammark 09:00, 7 February 2010 (EST)
  • I object to putting this in the trivia section on the wiki for two reasons. 1) It's not consistent. There was no shaving that I recall in the second season. And not all the "bad guys" have been seen shaving (like Linderman or Arthur). 2) It uses the opinion-based word "villain". We are very careful to not call people "heroes" on the wiki because it's such a loaded word. Likewise with the word "villain". Many might see Noah as a villain, or Nathan, or Thompson, or even Tracy. Many might see Danko as guy just doing his job, or Samuel as a guy who was wronged, or Adam as a guy who was taking extreme measures to make the world a better place. My main objection is to calling these people villains. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2010 (EST)

Lose all power?

How was it possible that he lost all his power when everyone left? He obviously still has his powers, so why couldn't he use them? Is he that weak, that without other evolved humans, he can't do anything? What do you think, because I'm confused.--Spexile 18:23, 9 February 2010 (EST)

  • it's most likely a plot hole, but in the Heroes universe, maybe he hasn't had practice with his ability with little evolved humans around for so long, he was weak without them.--Catalyst · Talk · HL 18:25, 9 February 2010 (EST)
    • It's also plausible that the weaker/stronger thing was specific for Samuel (like the strength for knox) and when peter replicated it, he just replicated the core part of the ability. That would mean Peter could easily stop any earth movement Samuel tries to make. --mc_hammark 18:32, 9 February 2010 (EST)


Maybe we should add to the trivia that samuel is the only character to appear in every episode of a single season. daevon 01:34, 11 February 2010 (EST)

  • Wasn't Hiro in every episode of season 1?--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 01:37, 11 February 2010 (EST)
  • Claire has appeared in every episode in Genesis, Villains, and Redemption. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 01:45, 11 February 2010 (EST)
  • Wasn't Claire in every episode this season?--Riddler 02:42, 11 February 2010 (EST)
    • Ok, maybe it should be put, "Samuel is the first character which, since two of the original main cast in Volume One, has appeared in every episode of his introductory Volume." --mc_hammark 10:45, 11 February 2010 (EST)
      • Yeah, i like the last one best. daevon 11:47, 11 February 2010 (EST)
        • Wouldn't it be better to say "Samuel is the only character that has appeared in every episode since he was introduced."? Mentioning Claire and Hiro makes it sound very complicated... -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2010 (EST)
          • Good point, that sounds even better. But if he returns next volume, (or doesn't) we'll need to change it. --mc_hammark 14:23, 11 February 2010 (EST)
            • Or we could just remove it at that point since it's not really a very significant point, considering he's the third person to appear in every episode of a season. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2010 (EST)
              • Alternatively: Samuel is only the third character to appear in every every episode in a season, and the third character to appear in every episode in his debut season. Hiro and Claire appeared in every episode in Season One, and Claire and Samuel appeared in every episode in Season Four. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:27, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Teleporting of the Carnival

It's been touched on, but not discussed here, as far as I can tell (if there was a discussion about this somewhere else, please point me there and disregard the rest (for the moment)). I know some have posited that 'another carny' may have been responsible for moving the Carnival, but unless we see that, we can;t assume that. What we did see was Samuel talking to Tracy outside the Carnival, then the two of them suddenly at the carnival (after whatever that spinning light show was). As such, since we know it wasn't Tracy doing it and Samuel was the only other character there at the time, aren't we forced to list that as part of his power until we get other evidence?

Once we start assuming 'off-screen intervention' we're on a very slippery slope (eg - How do we know that any character isn't Sylar in disguise; how do we know that displays of power (eg - telekinesis) isn't really Sylar offscreen, etc). I feel pretty strongly about adding this unless someone can come up with a good explanation (based on other evidence or our general policies) as to why it shouldn't be done. --Stevehim 16:46, 16 February 2010 (EST)

  • We didn't see Tracy do anything, we didn't see Samuel do anything, and we didn't see any offscreen character do anything (obviously). I don't think we should assume it's part of Samuel's power unless we have evidence that he did something. I think the only thing we can say is that the carnival was moved, and so were Tracy and Samuel. However, we don't know how this was accomplished. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2010 (EST)
    • By 'didn't see Samuel do anything,' what do you mean exactly? Like a hand gesture? The leader of the Carnival shows up (alone) to talk to Tracy, has his hands up, they are suddenly in the Carnival, and Tracy asks him 'What did you do.' Isn't that visual and verbal confirmation? --Stevehim 17:25, 16 February 2010 (EST)
      • No. Tracy only assumes that Samuel was doing something- that by no means, means he did it. How do we know Samuel is alone in that scene? For all we know he had someone hiding around the corner. And I don't see a way how Terrakinesis can account for what happened in that scene, as it looks far more like teleportation then anything to do with the earth. It shouldn't be added because it's entirely speculative to say Samuel is responsible, just as much as saying any of the other carnies are. Ultimately, we don't know how it moved. Swm 17:45, 16 February 2010 (EST)
      • Right, so we have a relatively uninformed canon source assuming Samuel did it, as opposed to no other evidence whatsoever, in any type of source. As such, we don't have anything trumping the canon source, and assuming she 'didn't know what she was talking about' is speculation anyway. We report what we see and hear.

        Whether we think terrakinesis could be responsible for such a feat is absolutely immaterial...that's not our call to make.

        As for assuming that people are off screen doing things, like I said that's a slippery slope. How do we know that every time Sylar moves his fingers it's him using his tk, as opposed to some off screen entity using their tk? How do we know that anyone we see is really a new character, as opposed to a shapeshifted Sylar? How do we know that Peter is using his telepathy to block Matt's, in the instances where we don't hear his 'head-voice?' How do we know Mohinder created those cocoons (not sure if we ever saw him doing it), or that the people we see teleporting are doing so of their own?

        The point is, we cannot assume anything is being done off screen, ever, without some kind of indication that it is. Saying it's speculative that Samuel moved it is like saying it's speculative that if we see Hiro and Ando in Japan and then suddenly in NY moments later (without actually seeing them disappear in Japan), we can;t say for sure it was Hiro doing the teleporting. We can only report what we see...we saw Samuel talking to Tracy...then there were flashing lights...then they were at the Carnival, at which point Tracy asked Samuel what he'd done, and we had no indication of him denying it, or of anyone else in the background in either location that would indicate they'd done it. --Stevehim 18:23, 16 February 2010 (EST)

        • Not saying "no" isn't the same as saying "yes". --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:27, 16 February 2010 (EST)
          • Agreed. But since when do we need confirmation of what a character tells us in canon when it's not contradicted by anything else, in any other source? --Stevehim 18:32, 16 February 2010 (EST)
            • Because neither of them are telling us anything. She asks how he "did this". He doesn't answer. Unless he gave some kind of answer, "how" is still up in the air. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:37, 16 February 2010 (EST)
              • 'How' is still up in the air...'that' he did it shouldn't be (and is in fact implied by 'how.'). --Stevehim 18:43, 16 February 2010 (EST)
                • There is far insufficient evidence to suggest that he actually did it. As one with a taste for the theatric, he would never say "Oh, it's that guy over there.", nor would he say "Yup, it was me." Without proof, saying he did it is speculative. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:46, 16 February 2010 (EST)
                  • I disagree. That's like saying that when we first see him use his power to move earth we are speculating that's what he's doing by raising his hands. We see something, we're supposed to record it. Deciding what Samuel 'would or would not say' based on his 'taste for the theatric' is complete speculation. We have 2 evolved humans, something happens, and we can rule out one of them. That's the basics of what occurred...anything else is speculation. --Stevehim 18:52, 16 February 2010 (EST)
                    • In watching the episode again, Samuel makes no physical motion whatsoever when the two appear at the Carnival. I'd like to ask you to explain how someone whose power is to control the earth can somehow move two people, without any jerk or unusual motion, to a different location, when all other uses of his power are quite loud. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:57, 16 February 2010 (EST)
                    • I would also like to note that Tracy is not "relatively uninformed", she is completely uninformed. Just because she accuses Samuel of doing it does not make it so. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:58, 16 February 2010 (EST)
                      • To the first, it doesn't matter how he can do it...that's not for us to speculate. It only matters if we saw him do it (and I think he did have his hands up, iirc). Tracy is no more uninformed than any other non-expert in the show (of which there are maybe a half dozen). Are you now saying that all information provided to us has to be in the form of a statement? Because I am fairly certain things have been phrased in question-form before. --Stevehim 19:03, 16 February 2010 (EST)
                        • I am watching the episode right now, he does not move at all as the teleportation happens. I'm not saying everything has to be explicitly stated, but her accusing him of teleporting her is not sufficient evidence that he actually did do it, particularly in that he doesn't answer the question. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 19:06, 16 February 2010 (EST)
                        • My point is, unless we know he did it, we can't claim he did. And we don't know he did it. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 19:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
                          • It depends on what we take as evidence. Personally, I think we have taken similar evidence in the past to record things, but don't have the time to go back sifting through history pages of previous seasons to document when. --Stevehim 19:20, 16 February 2010 (EST)
                          • Unless we can think of a reason how Samuel would be able to do it, we've no reason to think he did, or indeed could. As Desi rightly points out, what happened there is not consistent with any application of Terrakinesis as understood or shown anywhere else in the series. Unless we want to argue Samuel has another power that lets him return to the carnivel, which really would be speculation, assuming Samuel did it is speculation because you're speculating that he has the power to do it, which isn't backed up by anything. Swm 19:18, 16 February 2010 (EST)
                              • Afaik, we don;t have to figure out 'whether an ability could account for something.' We report what we see. The only issue is whether there is sufficient evidence or not to credit this to Samuel...whether it fits in with the definition we currently have of his power doesn't make a difference (and, indeed, we have expanded definitions of powers many times in the past). That said, 'the ability to control geologic materials such as minerals, dirt and rocks," would be enough to incorporate moving anything on said rocks, dirt, etc, in my opinion. --Stevehim 19:24, 16 February 2010 (EST)
                                • What we saw is that they appeared at the Carnival, without any explanation as to how. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 19:37, 16 February 2010 (EST)
                                • Also, if he was moving them along the ground, there would be wind, of which there was none. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 19:38, 16 February 2010 (EST)
                                  • "In (insert episode here), Tracy seems to think that Samuel is responsible for their sudden apparition at the Sullivan Bros. Carnival. Whether this is a result of Samuel's direct/indirect actions is unknown". That's the best I could come up with. Direct/indirect implies that it is either a result of his power, or him directing someone else to use their power, if that makes any sense. I'm still not sure that this should be mentioned however.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 19:57, 16 February 2010 (EST)

I always thought he just moved the ground under them.--Boycool42 17:56, 17 February 2010 (EST)

  • I think it was Samuel, although I have no idea how. It happened at the end of Hysterical Blindness with Sylar too, and it appeared Samuel was the only one present, bar Sylar and all the police that time too.--Evil Maldini 19:41, 17 February 2010 (EST)
    • He's shown that he can move the soil. Depending on how fast he can do it, that's probably how he does the "teleport." He also did it in Close to You, btw.--Boycool42 07:39, 18 February 2010 (EST)
      • Again, if he was moving people or things along the soil there would be substantial noise and wind. I don't understand how, with an entire Carnival full of specials (one of whom can cloak things, for example), people are assuming it's Samuel doing it. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 09:36, 18 February 2010 (EST)
        • I can only speak for myself, but my argument has always been that he's the only one there that we see, and I think assuming 'outside forces' is a mistake, and a somewhat dangerous one, for the reasons I pointed out above that have yet to really be addressed (ie - we could do the same in other places). I don't buy the noise and wind argument, as you're assuming laws of physics when the show clearly breaks pretty much all of them (and now we have even more evidence from others posting about other episodes). That said, I don't see why we shouldn't list what PJDEP posted above in the Notes section, as it is factual, non-committal, and not debatable (and what the Notes section is for). I'll wait a bit for any objections, but if there are none I'll post it in the Notes section. --Stevehim 00:37, 21 February 2010 (EST)
          • Well, look at it this way; in season 1 when Claire was being interviewed by Audrey, we didn't see the haitan until after the interview. Did any of us actually suspect it was Noah doing that to Matt's ability? I doubt it. --mc_hammark 06:23, 21 February 2010 (EST)
            • I'm still not taking a side here, but there's a difference between those situations. For one, we know that Samuel has a power and that it's conciviable that he could have "teleported" people to the carnival. Also, the season is over and the carnival is in shambles, so we probably won't get a definitive answer.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 21:37, 21 February 2010 (EST)
            • It's also not the same thing because we saw the Haitian in that scene (in fact in the same episode). We also knew of a character who worked with Noah who could block powers at that point (and mid-episode edits are almost a never a good idea on tv wikis in any case). If we knew of someone in the Carnival who could move it, that would cast doubt, but simply saying there could be someone at the Carnival because a lot of EHs are there is extremely speculative (a lot moreso than attributing it to the one in the scene that moves earth and that Tracy accused on doing so (as well as the other two scenes mentioned)). That said, it's still canon, not speculation, to put what PJDEP outlined above in the Notes section. I've already abandoned the idea of attributing it to Samuel, but citing Tracy's comment is perfectly acceptable afaik. --Stevehim 01:08, 22 February 2010 (EST)
        • The fact that we are actually spending time on this site arguing about a fictional superpower on a fictional tv show is pretty pathetic.--Boycool42 16:36, 19 February 2010 (EST)
          • I don't know about others but I find that rather offensive. There's nothing wrong with enjoying a decent discussion with a group of intelligent people who give up their own time to help correctly document things so that it makes information easier for others to access correctly. --mc_hammark 16:50, 19 February 2010 (EST)
          • I agree with Mc, the point of this site is to accurately chronicle Heroes. If there is something the entire community doesn't agree with, we need to have a discussion. If you find that pathetic, it's confusing as to why you joined the community in the first place.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 17:15, 19 February 2010 (EST)
            • If my comment offends you, then I apologize.--Boycool42 08:31, 20 February 2010 (EST)

Volume Six

Do you think he'll be back? All the other villains have.--Boycool42 07:37, 25 February 2010 (EST)

  • When did Arthur Petrelli come back? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2010 (EST)
    • And when they did, they've almost always been killed off again straight away (Adam for Arthur, then Danko for Samuel). I'd like to see him again in the future, certainly, but not if it's just to wrap up the character by killing him off. Swm 07:07, 26 February 2010 (EST)
      • You could say that Arthur was a "behind the scenes" villain. We all knew Linderman was a villain (well, a real bad guy) before we met him, so essentially, when they "killed" him behind the scenes, you could take it as him being killed off. --mc_hammark 07:09, 26 February 2010 (EST)
        • Ok, let me rephrase: All the other living villains, and some dead, have appeared again.--Boycool42 16:15, 27 February 2010 (EST)
          • Except Arthur. Anyway, I think he may come back, but not as definitely as the other villains had. Primarily due to Samuel's "If anyone comes near, I get crazy strong" thing. --Ricard Desi 21:10, 27 February 2010 (EST)
            • Yeah, I really don't know how the CIA would hold Samuel.--Boycool42 17:37, 1 March 2010 (EST)
              • They'll constantly fly him around in a plane at 20,000 feet.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 17:43, 1 March 2010 (EST)
                • If this were 1947-2008 America, I would think they would just make him disappear... but with the new administration....--Boycool42 16:20, 7 March 2010 (EST)


Why exactly was he arrested?--Boycool42 16:21, 7 March 2010 (EST)

  • We don't exactly know. Endangerment of people. Illegal parking of caravans in central park? But I don't think there needs to be a real reason. Remember noah said there would be deniability from the government. --mc_hammark 16:24, 7 March 2010 (EST)
    • I find it unlikely that Lauren, someone with a maximum of two years in the CIA, has enough power to make the government deny something like that.--Boycool42 16:34, 7 March 2010 (EST)
      • But Noah has connections to the President. He has power. --mc_hammark 16:37, 7 March 2010 (EST)
        • Ah, that's true.--Boycool42 16:41, 7 March 2010 (EST)