What I find most remarkable here is that you actually seem to be doubting that the mummified body found in KV62 does not belong to Tutankhamun. Really? What direction are you trying to take this?
In any case you're making some fundamental errors. Consider, for example, that while the Antechamber and Annex of KV62 had been entered by tomb raiders at least twice in ancient times, the burial chamber had never been violated. Its sealed door was found intact by Howard Carter in 1922. Moreover, once Carter and his team got into the burial chamber to clear it, the sarcophagus itself was sealed. I'm working from memory here, but of the four gilded-wood shrines surrounding the sarcophagus, the outermost door was never sealed but all three of the inner shrines' doors still had their original necropolis seals from more than 3,300 years ago.
Added to that, Tut's tomb was situated underground in the floor of the Valley of the Kings. As we know, Tut lived in Dynasty 18. In Dynasty 20, the joint tomb of Ramesses V / VI (KV9) was built into the cliff face uphill from Tut's tomb. In the quarrying operations for KV9, countless amounts of rubble and fill were dumped down the slope. The end result is that the upper sealed entrance to Tut's tomb, KV62, was completely buried in thick strata of this rubble and fill. Tutankhamun was a minor king in the first place—he did not live long, of course—and in all likelihood was quite forgotten by the time of Ramesses V. The proscriptions and erasures of Amarna history instituted by Horemheb and the early Ramessides would've helped to ensure that.
I'm not going to bog down the discussion with a debate on Amarna artwork or pharaonic art in general, but very rarely did royal artwork accurately depict or reflect the actual physical appearance of the kings for whom they were built. Tut himself is a good example of that, but an even better example is Ramesses II, one of the greatest kings in history. Were we to believe the royal art program of his nearly 70-year reign, we would be left to think Ramesses II was young and buff and beautiful until his dying day. And when that sad day came, we know Ramesses II was around 90 years old, so of course he was no longer young and buff and beautiful. But the statues depicting him still were.
You are correct that in its late years Egypt was repeatedly conquered. Of all of those conquerers, however, the Nubians seem to be the only ones who possessed a true veneration for or interest in Egyptian history and culture. Practically all of the others—Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans—didn't give much of a damn about Egypt itself, so long as they could get rich off its agriculture. Why you would suggest some Assyrian king or Roman emperor would be interested in "mixing up" things, doesn't make much sense to me. They simply would not have cared that much, and what would be the motive for it in the first place?
In conclusion, I'm aware some of this debate is about head binding. Let's put that to rest. Review the literature of the forensic experts who specialize in the study of ancient Egyptian human remains (e.g., Joyce Filer in particular). There is no evidence for skull deformation in the pharaonic society. While it may have been practiced elsewhere in ancient Africa, bear in mind that "Africa" is a modern place name and not a culture. Skull deformation was not part of the ancient Egyptian culture. No one can deny that Tut himself has an oddly shaped skull, but all forensic experts who examined it are in agreement that it's still within normal dimensions for the skull of a modern human.
I will doubt Carter and all Egyptologists who made these finds before Videography. Why should i blindly believe Carter when other evidence is saying contrary.
All i am saying is that when things are not adding up, like the Amarna Busts and the actual mummies claimed to be the individual, it could be due to other reasons then abstract art.
Like i said mummies from Tut's time period were commonplace in those times, maybe Carter put one in the Sarcophagus and sealed it. He didn't want an empty Sarcophagus.
I am only being skeptical of things which were not documented properly and for which we have to rely on Individual testimony.
Forensic science can only tell us so much. There is no actual labelled DNA evidence from the real TUT to compare the mummy sample to and confirm.
Obviously the forensic experts have concluded that the alleged tut mummy did not have a distorted skull, what i am saying is that the mummy is not Tut's. Maybe the original Tut did have a bound head. His body could have been destroyed previously by robbers etc, Carter could have replaced it with another mummy from the same period, that belonging to a person whose head was not bound.Or maybe one of the later Pharoah used Tut's tomb and sarcophagus for himself. There are many possibilities.