Why is it that every time someone finds a skull and dates it, they automatically think they know from the estimated age weather it is some link in some genus (or between them), rather than a dead end branch (which is much more likely) or incidental offshoot?
They don't. That's why they say it may be. More research is needed. It's still a very interesting find, either way. A 14myo skull of this type is quite interesting.
1. Optimism
2. If it looks like what is expected, from the right time period current thinking considers likely - it's a good working hypothethis
Shut up. Questioning the priests of Darwin is indication of slope-headedness. /s
Cladistics. A discovery can be shown to be representative of an evolutionary "link" without having to be demonstrated to be "the" link itself.
Actually, scientists are well aware of the issues you raised, and generally use language that is more consistent the understanding that such "links" are more likely representative offshoots of actual common ancestors than "the" common ancestors themselves. Note that Moya says "a common ancestor" rather than "the" common ancestor. And the research papers are even more careful in how they describe such things.
But press accounts of such scientific discoveries are often "dumbed down" (either through oversimplification, or the reporter's lack of understanding) and frequently state things in more simple -- but inaccurate -- terms.
Always check out the actual research papers, and take with a grain of salt (or a whole bag) whatever a "pop science" article has to say about it.
Garbled articles for the public about scientific issues is a pet peeve of mine.
They don't. Which is why anthropology is as political as any other field. Obviously more research is needed.