[alexander_busek]

After the remains of the boat were found off the coast of Ireland [ON WHAT DATE?], its true origin has finally been discovered.

Does no one else reading this article feel that here, in the second line of the article, some vital information is missing that would allow the reader to properly understand the "mystery?"

If the circumstances (names, dates, etc.) of the wrecking of the ship are that well documented, then we can safely assume that no mystery surrounds it.

Are we to assume that the wreckage then immediately disappeared from sight - only to (anonymously) appear, maybe years later, somewhere else? And that the connection to the original, well-documented wreck, had vanished?

So the only real forensic problem was "connecting" some generic pieces of timber that washed ashore somewhere with the original, well-documented shipwreck?

Another example of poor journalism!

Regards,

[nickcarraway]

250 years after it sunk.

[GOP Poet]

Great points!

[super7man]

Plus, no mention of why it is called “Butter Boat”.