No need to be a jerk. I agree that those photos do not contain the identical pieces. It looks to me like the color one has a handful more pieces than the black and white one, which from the way it's described ("there is a black and white image of the same skeleton on Dr. Thewissen’s web site that was once used instead of the above color image") is probably an earlier photo. It makes sense that the later photo would have more pieces. Also, the b&w photo seems to be an attempt to put the skeleton together as it would be in the animal, while the color photo spreads the bones out for easier inspection. And the rib bones are arranged in different orders, but they mostly seem to be the same bones. But other than those things, the only real anomaly I see is the right hip in the b&w one, which seems more complete than the color version. I don't know why that is, but it's a pretty trivial issue.
I apologize for the question that disturbed you, but Sarfati and the other author have been called liars for essentially a similar action. In any case, the hip bones are the bones of contention and therefore extremely important. So they should be unquestionable. They are not.
As to the placement, foot bones should be foot bones, and tail bones should be tail bones,etc. And those bones should not change shape from image to image except in minor ways.