So it's manipulative. Like a sensational headline that buries the mundanity at the end. Lead with "this is already publicly known" so people can make an informed choice about where to direct their attention.

If the point of the article/twitter thread was to reveal the location of the hanger, as if that was previously a secret, then yes perhaps the title is misleading.

But that's not the point of the article. The point of the article was to reveal the location of the hanger using the stars and other metadata, and to explain how that was done. The journey was the story, not the destination.

"as if that was previously a secret"

And that's where the disagreement is. It implied a secret by the nature of the object, enough so that the fact it wasn't needed to be clarified - but at the end. You only publicly reveal something once, and this already had been.

But then, those aren't his words and it's implicit so this is a grey area and not a huge deal. But I still think leaving the clarification to the end was deliberate.