"Mr. Simpson, you're free to go on your own recognizance."
Now, please show me the evidence used to reach the conclusions in this article.
Does that skull at the top of the thread look human to you? It does to the researchers, too (although their conclusions are more quantitative). That's the point of the article. As for the dating of the skull, you'll have to read the paper yourself.
I don't know what criteria they used to piece it together or if it was pieced together properly (neanderthal skulls weren't!), if all fragments were from the same skull, etc. There is a limit to scientific certainty with this limited evidence. Inferences were made here that cannot be called empirical facts. Want me to point out some of them from the article?
This is ad hominem - try to stick to the arguments. Either there is enough basis to make final conclusions about these bone fragments or there isn't. Obviously, there isn't!