Just a few thoughts -
My grandfather would have been about 25 yrs old at the time of the picture. He was 5 ft 4 in. Not enough different from your 6 ft to significantly change the ratio but enough to cast doubt on that method of estimating the length of the "leg"
A second check on your length ratios would be to investigate the proportions of a humpback whale. The numbers for width of the tail flukes I found online range from 10 to 18 ft. Your grid looks like 4 ft from centerline to right edge of flukes (8 ft wide total) which is below the range expected.
Another check (which I couldn't find) would be how far from the tail to the genitals proportional to the overall length.
You are assuming the leg is parallel to the grid. Given the obvious three dimensional curve to the body behind the man, why would you assume parallel? Why not perpendicular to the body and therefore at an unknown angle to the camera? If parallel, why is the leg brightly lit while the whale below the body centerline in heavy shadow? For example, why can you see the man's toes but not his heels? I think the leg is more or less parallel to the man's left foot.
Since your reference to Piltdown man includes the fact that scientist were casting doubt on Piltdown's authenticity in less than a year, do you have corresponding published refutes to Andrew's paper? Since he included pictures and measurements, other experts would be able to point out the true source of the bones (cows, humpback phalanges, etc).
™ Version 4.2
(1)
