We are talking about fossils, fossils of animals that reproduced exactly like we observe today. Breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species. There are no transitional fossils linking two species - unless you incorrectly call two different breeds species.
You know, just like they do with Finches. So if they can not get animals that interbreed and produce fertile offspring right before their eyes labeled correctly - I sure have no confidence they got those transitional fossils labeled correctly - nor I doubt the two they are trying to link.
You claim these are all separate species.
I claim they are all just different breeds of the same species, just like we observe before our eyes.
You are looking for links that do not exist, as each of those dinosaur came about from breed mating with breed producing a new breed. Just like we observe in the natural world. The empirical evidence goes against everything you are trying to claim. Just as all cats are one species and all dogs are of one species, so too were all of those dinosaur in the picture above one species.
You've given no good evidence yet that any of those claimed transitional fossils are related to anything, nor that two creatures you are trying to link are related. Those that are clearly just different breeds like Triceratops and T. Prorsus, you classify incorrectly as separate species just like those finches. And so you look for a transitional between them, when none existed in the first place. You simply observe the appearance of a new breed in the fossil record from two other breeds mating.
I'm not going to play the "IF evolution was true" game, because it isn't. There exist no transitional fossils because breed mates with breed producing new breeds. They just labeled them incorrectly as separate species when they are in actuality merely different breeds.