The headline is fine. Reading it in the spirit of "the museum is defrauding people and we found out about it" is extremely uncharitable and nitpicky.

Sure, I guess I automatically interpret the connotation of "forgeries" and a museum as referring to a museum being the defrauded, since they typically are either given or acquiring exhibits, and less often are selling/trading them.

Museum of the Bible discovers it's Dead Sea Scrolls fragments are all forgeries

The important difference is the implication in the headline needs to be that the Museum is discovering this instead of the Museum defrauding people

Didn't a third party make the discovery? Doesn't sound very accurate that way.

The headline does not imply anyone being defrauded by the Museum to me.

But they hired the 3rd party so they get the credit.

"Museum of the Bible determine that all of their Dead Sea Scrolls are forgeries"

A third party made the finding, so if we are being making pedantic alteration to the headline, shouldn’t we avoid this inaccuracy?

The original headline read something more like “museum discovers all Dead Sea scroll fragments are forgeries,” which I read and initially thought “really? The Dead Sea scrolls are fake?” Then I read the article and realized it was only about a few fragments in some museum in DC, which I had never even heard of. So to me, the headline was much spicier than the article. It had grammatical ambiguity that I thought was a little misleading.