At first glance, the bones looked like an old crushed chimpanzee skeleton. And to this day, that's precicely what I think it is.
And on what basis do you draw that conclusion? Was it the detailed comparison of these bones to a chimps or a human? Was it the exact form of the pelvis, skull or what?
It couldn't be that you just looked at them and made a decision about their nature from total ignorance of the detailed anatomy could it? That would be a completely foolish way to draw a conclusion.
Did you do it instead by reading over the monographs describing the specimens? Perhaps you'd like to share your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with those who studied them in detail? It couldn't be that you really don't have any reasons at all could it?
™ Version 4.2