Could you point out some case in history where a living ape was confused for a living human or vise versa? That is to say, where one of these species was in a transitional state? The transitional fossils are all deceased at this point. Sorry.
However, you are a transitional! You are genetically different from your parents, and if you have children you are genetically different from them as well.
But, here is an example of a fossil transitional. Check out the chart for its position (hint--in the upper center):
Fossil: KNM-ER 3733
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
I was hoping there might be some record, i.e. written account, indicating an ape was once confused for a human, or vise versa; where living humans were literally at a loss as to which species the sample represents. There should be some such creatures living today that have us scratching our heads wondering: "Is it human or is it ape?" But it seems we are able to tell the difference right away and always have. Without such samples the theory of evolution is sorely lacking substantive evidence.
I believe if all the samples you post could be put together into the form they had when they were alive, there would be no problem determining fairly quickly whether they are ape or human.
It simply does not wash that, because there are small changes from generation to generation, these necessarily add up to large changes over a long period of time. Not to say the idea is preposterous or completely unfounded. It just has not been supported by the direct observation of humans or their written records over millennia.