What was the point of asking for photos that had already been linked?
If you look at the link I gave you, two of the four sources directly address articles from 2001. The article also directly addresses the skeleton bone find.
There are two skeleton bone finds. In one case, Sarfati makes the tiniest nod toward acknowledging the truth. He mentions the early lack of postcranial bones on Pakicetus, doing the usual jeer at attempts to reconstruct from a few pieces. He goes on to say that later Thewissen found "some more bones." He quietly lets the word "postcranial" slip in, but nowhere acknowledges that recent reconstructions are based on relatively complete information. If you didn't know from better sources what he was spinning here, you'd still think all we know of Pakicetus came from two skull bones.
In the other case, Ambulocetus, he's still telling people there are no pelvic bones. Furthermore, I linked the refutation of the "no pelvis" silliness before you even linked the stupid article containing it. Does no good.
Some people on this thread have been impressed with your performance. I am not one. You know only the pig-ignorant AiG strawman version of evolution. And you're just going through their articles one by one, blasting them out. There's no stopping you and it's not an intelligent dialogue. You just fire the stuff out there.
Out for the night.