From my understanding facial reconstruction from skulls is a well-defined process in forensics, so it's likely that they used standard methods. They mentioned getting colors (i.e. skin/hair tone) from painting.
I've noticed that people rarely seem to see much value in testing procedures against questions with known answers.
Bone structure is, as far as I can tell as a layperson, the major determinant of how people look. I found it quite surprising as I thought it would be the other way around.
The only obvious change was hair and skin color, essentially.
How would it work the other way around? You don't have a "look" before your bone structure exists right?
> It is easily the most subjective—as well as one of the most controversial—techniques in the field of forensic anthropology.
It's commonly used, but is it:
* Consistent from practitioner to practitioner?
* Able to consistently pass a double-blind test?
My understanding of forensic 'science' is that it has a bad reputation for having more in common with shamanism, or the rituals of a witchdoctor, than it does with science.