Lucy - fact or fraud?

Forget what Oxnard said - he work has been criticized. Look at the comparisons for yourself. Better images can be found here: australopithecusOrangutanHuman (diag)If you would like to discuss, in any more detail, the bipediality of these creatures - it should be done in a different thread since this one is dedicated to discussions about the fraudulent nature of Lucy. You don't seem to be questioning the Fraud side of things.Please propose a new topic on this theme if you wish to continue its discussion - I'd be interested in reading it.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that your source is demonstratably wrong about the pelvis of Australopithecus being more similar to an orangutan than it is to a human.I think we both agree that Lucy in herself, was not a fraud like Piltdown man was. As such posting in this thread is not on topic, unless you are suggesting that fraud has taken place somewhere. The bipediality of Lucy and her kin is irrelevant to my life, but I find the topic of interest for debate. How about you propose a new topic on the subject. We should probably focus on contemporary evidence where possible. How about it?