Anyway, even in that limited area--cutting the tree off pretty far down---there's considerable convergence of opinion. That's not bad considering that the convergences tend to get bigger as you zoom out, smaller as you zoom in. Why? Signal/noise ratio. The whole, non-truncated tree of life would show rather more agreement.
What you seem to be linking is a summary of trees drawn by individuals by methods unspecified. It does not refute the source I linked at all, which discusses the convergence of trees developed by different methods.
Even if I recognize some of the names in your chart--OK, one name--it's much more interesting to know how the trees were developed rather than by whom, wouldn't you say? Also, your chart is undated, which is something I've learned can be rather treacherous in this area of study.
Is the glass half empty or half full? You said the trees were all the same so your statement was incorrect (as well as the article you cited as substantiation from TalkOrigins). Note that there were differences between the 10 evolutionists cited, no two had the same tree - as I have said many times. With such diversity how can one say that the criteria being used by these evolutionists is in any way scientific? The answer is that it cannot be said that these trees represent the results of anything that can be called science. They are merely the result of guesses which are not science. This is the problem with all fossil 'evidence'. Too many assumptions need to be made in order to make the evidence fit the theory. Therefore the claim that these cladograms are evidence of anything is totally false.