Thanks for posting that Norseman. Interesting observations here...I guess today all content is marketed as "shocking", but hardly is this that, I don't think.
We talk here a lot about how the enigma of the Squatch morphology and behavior lends itself to all kinds of speculation and (sometimes) dubious theories. I've proposed my share of those, and enjoy painting on this blank canvas as much as the next guy. With all due respect to Dr. Meldrum though, my reaction to this theory is pretty much a shrug. I mean, can you not cherry pick any characteristic of BF and draw conclusions about it being an ape, a hominid, an ape-hominid, a giant lemur, just about anything you'd care to propose? It might be some or none of those, for all we are able to say. That Patty has a passing similarity to an extinct precursor of H. sapiens (which they MIGHT be) is not much of a revelation, any more than saying a modern human has some similarities to a chimpanzee. After all, when your data set includes the criteria: Mammal, bipedal, binocular vision, opposable thumbs....the similarities are as plentiful as the differences. That this somehow moves the needle towards proof that Patty was an ape, and not a human? Not so much, for me.