Good thing it wasn’t a Sasquatch, because that kind of evidence just doesn’t fly when it comes to modern bipedal primates. Years of films, videos, photos, footprints and even hair samples have led biologists to dismiss solid Sasquatch evidence as junk science, even now. They want a body or bones for proof of Sasquatch; yet this singular rat, thought extinct for over 100 years, is accepted as real? On the basis of one sighting alone?

Where’s the red-crested tree rat’s DNA test? The blood and tissue samples? The hair samples? Are we supposed to accept mere photographs and anecdotes (by volunteer researchers yet!) as evidence for some creature’s existence? If so, then Sasquatch/BF is a legitimate primate species, by this logic.

Sadly, Loren and the Cryptomundo staff have again fallen for a totally biased mainstream science trap: what’s good enough to prove the existence of a bird or rat species is not good enough for proof of Sasquatch, or any other primate discoveries for that matter.

I’d guess Patterson, Gimlin, and all the other Sasquatch witnesses and researchers who came before are rolling over in their graves at science’s easy acceptance of this missing rat species. If you’ve had a Sasquatch encounter or shot videos/photos of same, this “discovery” should really burn you up.

After a 2-hour encounter, they didn’t even get plaster casts of the little guy’s prints.