i love the scientific explanation for maintaining the label 'thought to be', which indicates the scientific scrutiny required to be certain. However, ultimately

i love the scientific explanation for maintaining the label 'thought to be', which indicates the scientific scrutiny required to be certain. However, ultimately they didn't remove the disclaimer because they had more data or a new find. Merely that label is deemed not necessary for monetary reasons: >There were two reasons for dropping the official doubt about the identity of the shipwreck ... >First, the museum recently opened "Blackbeard's Queen Anne's Revenge," a greatly expanded exhibit >Also, removing the official caveat could help the museum secure private funding I guess I wasn't expecting that after the defense of the scrutiny in the first part.