So . . . you refuse to comment on the skulls because you're not seeing feet. I said earlier that hominid feet do exist, that there are web pages about them, and I linked you to one. At least the leaders of the creationist movement have attempted to comment, which gains a little more of my respect; though as I said, it's because they know that unlike people who for e.g. just post on internet lists, they have to do it if they're going to make a case for creationism being scientific. Did you have a look at Turkana Boy? They don't agree on that one even though it's nearly a complete skeleton. They don't agree on the others either.

If the differences are "obvious," then tell me what you think they are. I look forward to one single post that attempts to discuss the evidence, though as I said earlier these expectations look like being unreasonable. Please do not simply repeat yet again the empty waffle about how it's all clear but you're not going to say anything.