“Some of these, as you say, do indeed have only one or two samples so far found.
But others (i.e., Neanderthals, Ergaster) have dozens or hundreds of individuals found.
These allow reconstruction of complete skeletons, and from them presumed outward appearances.”
Sure, for a few examples, this is true. For the majority, the fossils are laughably incomplete, and the reconstructions are therefore of dubious quality. There are certainly plenty of examples of evolutionists letting their imagination run wild over a few bones, declaring a new human ancestor, only to find a few more bones which showed they had merely found a new kind of ape.
“The bones themselves tell a lot about what those individuals looked like — no need to exaggerate either their human or non-human aspects.”
Only for the few examples where we have mostly intact specimens, which is not many.
“Hominid skulls, from chimpanzee to modern homo sapiens:”
Which proves nothing more than that scientists are able, much like kindergartners, to arrange various items according to some property, such as size or general similarity. This might impress schoolchildren, but it is of no actual scientific value.
It is the essence of science to make the best it can of available evidence, and to improve it's explanations as new evidence arrives.
Nothing wrong with that, it's the way things should be.
Boogieman: "Only for the few examples where we have mostly intact specimens, which is not many."
"Not many"? Again, this listing includes dozens of different sites, some of which produced many ancient bones.
Naturally, scientists keep looking for more and better examples, but it seems to me that reasonable conclusions can be drawn from available evidence.
Boogieman: "Which proves nothing more than that scientists are able, much like kindergartners, to arrange various items according to some property, such as size or general similarity.
This might impress schoolchildren, but it is of no actual scientific value."
The skulls are arranged not according to just "some property", but by estimated age, oldest-to-youngest, beginning with the second skull, after the first modern chimpanzee.
Here is the source.
So, your "hand waving" argument here notwithstanding, the photo provides a reasonable answer for those who demand to see "intermediate forms".
Of course, no serious scientist needs to see such a display, and so in that sense, you are correct.