Don't know if this has been discussed but I thought this short article posted on Bigfootencounters.com was pretty interesting. It kind of sums up some of my ideas as to one of the possible reasons as to why people (as humans) outright deny the possibility of a coexisting bipedal primate...denial.

"We want the first bipedal humans to stay out of the trees, but their curved hand bones suggest they spent time swinging in the canopy like apes; we want brain size to increase in lock step with tool use, but tools appear before big brains; we want an orderly diaspora out of Africa and across the globe by culturally armed early humans, but it looks like people kept leaving all the time in fits and starts that don’t correlate with anything; and we want the last 200,000 years of human evolution, the time when modern Homo sapiens appeared, to make some kind of sense, but it doesn't."

http://www.livescience.com/history/070831_...amily_tree.html

That same fossil record she is talking about has a few examples of bipedal apes living side by side and at the same time, because there are bones to support that.

Got squatch bones?

IMO, I think a lot of scientists have known for some time that the human tree contained several species that lived side by side but that view remained unorthodox until it became clear that there were too many holes in the current position. So now it's the norm.