Clearly, it doesn't appear you even understood what I wrote. I unequivocally asserted the drawing is of an ostrich from Africa. With my reference to the South American rhea, I merely noted a superficial resemblance. In actuality, the anatomy is wrong for a rhea as well. As for the rest of your agenda, I don't care to comment on it.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time on your nonsense but I don't have a problem with citing evidence, peer-reviewed of course. First, see how the feet are depicted in the drawing:
View attachment 25220
Now, from Plantar pressure distribution of ostrich during locomotion on loose sand and solid ground, we have an anatomical description of ostrich feet in comparison to the feet of other flightless birds (bottom of pg. 3):
The paper also includes associated drawings:
View attachment 25221
That looks pretty convincing to me. There's no need to construct an elaborate fantasy about the document when a far simpler solution is readily apparent. The drawing on the back of the chart is somewhat crude but it does appear to include diagnostic elements definitive enough to conclude that the bird depicted is an ostrich. If other birds had similar feet, maybe there would be further room for speculation. But no such birds currently exist.
I found the original post with a more complete picture of the disputable bird. Post 556 on page 56. I note the bird has two things dangling from its beak.
Those could hypothetically be the wattles of a turkey or other bird. Those might hypothetically be an iron horseshoe since ostriches were often depicted holding iron horseshoes in their mouths.