Before anyone asks, yes, I did get a lot of my information from a YouTube channel called Trey the Explainer.
That aside, as his video is called, "did T. rex have feathers?" As he once again said: "short answer: Yes!"
Now I'm done with direct quotes.
Anyhoo, before anybody says this, ja, we have found skin impressions from T. rex with scales on them, but, they are from sections where almost all dinos had scales, so that proves nothing. You might say "it was to big!" No, no it was not. You might say "it couldn't have had feathers, its environment was to hot!" No, its environment was not to hot, it had a mild to somewhat cold temperature year round, even in summer. You might say "only babaes had da feathers!" Maybe, actually, that may be correct. The thing is, scales can't exist under feathers, so that would only leave bare skin. That was probably pink. And given that the whole point of the anti-feathers "movement" is pretty much just to keep T. rex "cool," I don't think you would like that. In fact, one would expect scientists to be more in favor of that idea than all of the JP fanboys (yes, pretty much all anti-feather people are probably just JP fanboys trying to prove their childhood right).
Now, how many feathers did T. rex have? We aren't sure. It's highly likely it wasn't completely covered in feathers, but it's decently probable that it had a substantial amount. How do we know T. rex probably had feathers? Many things it was related to and de ended from have evidence of feathers. Yutyrannus, Dilong, as well as many other theropods such as Raptors and Therizinosaurs. Even dinosaurs on the Ornithischian side of things have feathers. Hell, even Crocodilian scales have compounds (or something like that) in them known to exist in feathers. That suggests that the ancestor of all dinosaurs or possibly even all archosaurs had feathers or feather-like skin coverings. So for T. rex to just randomly lose them all wouldn't make the slightest lick of sense at all. Even if feathers didn't help the Rex in its evironment (which is unlikely, as it could have many purposes, such as temperature regulation or impressing mates), there's a thing called vestigial. Look it up. I see nothing major that would cause Rexes to lose all their feathers. Too hot (which it wasn't)? You don't need to lose all your feathers. And anyways, some kinds of feathers are actually better at helping creatures lose heat, since they can reflect sunlight, or other stuff I don't remember/understand. Too attention drawing? Just darken the feathers, no need to lose them.
A quote/saying I often hear is:
Scientists look for conclusions to fit the evidence. Creationists look for evidence to fit the conclusion.
Replace "Creationists" with "JP fanboys," and you have an accurate description of what's going on, they don't look at all the evidence and draw a conclusion from that, they have a preconceived conclusion that they want to prove, and only look at the evidence that supports that, thus the arguments about "we have scaly skin imprints," despite the location of the imprints only proving that it had scales where everybody expected it to have scales, including feather proponents. They don't give a s**t about the truth, they're trying to push an agenda.