For those of you who debate who was the thing. . .
. . . at what ever points of the film, I'm convinced that there is no definite answer to that, even a theoretical one. I think this because after watching John Carpenter's and Kurt Russel's review of the movie, he made it seem like things were randomly thought up and all implications we're completely wide open and next to useless. And, if you really think about it, we have no way of telling for sure if the certain person(s) were an imitation at what ever point or not; there's no way in hell, especially if they we're "perfect" imitations as the movie suggests. So, that's my opinion, and I'm going to stick to believing everyone's human until proven otherwise unless someone is willing and has what it takes to convince me? He he. I'm not saying people should debate about it though, but I think it's pretty much pointless since I also believe there was no intention of giving away who was "for sure" an imitation at what ever point.

Umm, we know that Outpost Intruder. In fact the man who cast the shadow wasn't even an actor, but a crew member. However, Carpenter does give hints as to who is infected, intentional or not. If we knew for sure who was who, this film wouldn't be near as good as it turned out to be. Sometimes, vagueness works for films in a good way. To say it's pointless ruins all the atmosphere. The vast majority of films like this that are so ambiguous are most of the time by accident. I don't think we should look at how the film was made to see who was who, but at the actual film itself, as we saw it. The truth is, the film has a linear timeline, and events happen in that timeline, many of them out-of-frame. However, we are given clues as to what was really going on within that story. All we attempt to do is piece those together. But of course, you can believe whatever you want and simply refrain from these interesting debates.

We as in the majority of the members here, not sure about most of the more recent members, us veterans have been spending most our time in the AWOL section. Hell, I hardly know what's been going on in here for the past year. Another thing you have to realize though, is that you should take whatever John Carpenter himself says with a grain of salt. This film was made 26 years ago and he doesn't even remember half the filming process. The site's owner, Todd, asked Carpenter a question at a Q&A about the "Lights Out" sequence that was cut. (Referring to when Mac was looking for Fuchs stating that the power was out for an hour) Carpenter replied that he doesn't remember anything about that scene. His health is likely failing, the guy smokes more than he breathes. He's 58, but he looks 78. Directors have also been known to mislead people with their answers to purposefully keep what they intended secret. Try not to view the whole "Making of" thing as disproving all theoretical conclusions. As for the film itself, people debate here because they want to and on top of that, see what they believe to be clues, hints, and sometimes we may even figure out solutions that have been proven to be true through the use of validation through multiple viewings of the film. But sometimes, it takes a bit of rationalization, and a little bit of imagination; because using the typical empirical method of finding answers doesn't always apply to the film. It's a sci-fi movie for christ's sake. Like all art, it uses a lie to tell the truth. Viewing paintings, movies, and reading books all the while analyzing it empirically is not the way to do it. As they say, you are the co-creator of your own reality. :D It's always fun to let your imagination run wild, especially with this movie.

100% true, F.F.

I agree with Outpost Intruder and Future Filmmaker, There are no definitive answers to who was a Thing at random points in the movie, and it has also been made known that the creators of the movie didn't even have any concrete idea of it. But like all good things, it's worth analyzing. For instance, I'm a musician, and I was watching a Steely Dan documentary, and the hired session musicians were going into such depth about the parts that the played. Like an almost laughable, ridiculous amount of detail like drummers' ghost notes, and hi-hat nuances, and bass players slapping techniques and so on... To most musicians these tiny little details in their technique just come natural and rarely do people put them into words. But seeing that Steely Dan is sort of an iconic group who are very respected for there musicianship and strange anti-corporate style, these little details are worth over analyzing. People tend to want to discuss things that are great, especially when it's like a cult-status sorta thing... So, my point is, even when discussing a matter, that seems to be pointless because it is known that there are no definitive answers, or maybe the known details make a pretty much pointless discussion (as in my music example,) I think people get pleasure out of talking about these issues just to voice their own opinion and to hear other people's. It enables you to ponder and think more about the subject and sort of re-live it. Take religion for example, there are no definitive answers within it, but people analyze it, discuss it, follow it, debate about it, fight over it, start wars over it...even though there is no point because no one really knows what is true... With that being said: It was Palmer's shadow on the wall...no doubt.

I think that BOTH Palmer and Norris were infected by dogtown. If you look after Childs Burns the DogThing, Palmer and Norris run in after only a second or two and extinguish the flames. I would have let it burn for a while like Mac did after torching NorrisThing.

It could've been because they we're afraid the room would burn completely. Wasn't there hay on the floor or something?

Yeah sure, it could just be coincidence. But isnt it interesting that both of them turned out to be the Thing?

Yea, but I suppose it's just as interesting that neither of them have attacked/ done anything to MacCready at the crashed space ship.

You could say the same thing about Clark and the dog. Remember, he was alone with the dog for more than an hour. Thats plenty of time to infect someone. Its hard to figure out the Thing's motives sometime.

So, like I've been saying this whole time, it's all uncertain.

But you are insinuating that its not worth debating.