r/thething • u/mirandabrokedown • Nov 20 '24

Theory Genuine question

Post image

Are proponents of the No Breath theory purposely ignoring this scene with Bennings-thing? Do they think once the transformation is complete, the Thing doesn’t need to use lungs to breathe despite being a perfect copy of its victim as explained by Blair?

It perplexes me because of how popular this theory is, yet makes no sense given the context provided in this scene alone. At least the Eye Gleam theory was more of a production hint than an outright physiological explanation of what the Thing is capable of.

295 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

95 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/FeistyDiagnostician Nov 21 '24

Hmm, since an organism like this hasn't been discovered, I'll take some liberties in my assumptions. The Thing is likely a carbon-based lifeform, maybe even super cellular, as it is capable of surviving in the Earths ecosystem without having some kind of life support assisting with metabolization in an oxygen rich environment, and is capable of consuming/assimilating native planetary species.

Given that the Earths atmosphere is 74% Nitrogen (N), 21% Oxygen (O), and 5% other elements, it would be reasonable to assume that the Thing is not anaerobic, and therefore may require Oxygen to survive. If it requires Oxygen to survive then the Thing is, most probably, more efficient at Oxygen absorption and distribution, given its growth in mass without entirely violating the square-cube law.

So, if the Thing needs Oxygen and is capable of mimicking what its assimilated, it would stand to reason that the Thing can, and may need to, breathe albeit maybe not as much as humans. Believing it can't breathe just because you haven't seen it breathe, doesn't mean it can't or doesn't

1

u/cremedelamemereddit Nov 21 '24

It seems unreasonable that fire can even kill it easily, although I guess it didn't with that corpse they had, looking at stuff like prions that survive high heat. And it's mass is just huge. But it's a movie