Because for one thing, as I understand it, "Lucy's" feet were never found. Therefore posing her as a hairy female (very hairy) with feet and breasts is a stupid ridiculous depiction.
No, the "stupidity", as you so arrogantly call it, is all yours.
The reason why we have artists' depictions in anthropology is because it's difficult for most to just look at bones and get a general picture of what a fossil would look like in real life. It would be like going to a funeral parlor of someone that you don't know, and when the casket is opened all you see are bones. With this in mind:
Did Lucy have hair? Well, we all have hair somewhere, but there's a variable we see in the primate line whereas if one was living in the African region and in either full or significant sunlight, either they would have to have either dark skin, or lotsa hair, or both; unless the skin was leathery like a rhinoceros.
Also, we know she was a female, thus she would have had breasts if she was a "teen" or older. But what we don't know is whether the breast stood out as with modern women or deflated when not lactating as with other primates.
We have to assume she walked, but what is important is the positioning of the leg bones to give us an indication how she may have walked v climbed or both [probably the latter]. In this case, her leg bones indicate that she most likely walked upright.
I hate to say this, but you really need to get over yourself as you come off as being a kind of "know it all" in an area you obviously are not very familiar with. If I'm at a doctor's office and he diagnoses me with having a medical issue, would I say that's "stupid ridiculous" if I'm not educated medically myself?
The point is you do yourself a great disservice with your behavior here at times, so maybe consider asking questions before assuming that someone else's post is "stupid ridiculous".
