Interesting documentary, but pretty light on actual facts or firsthand interviews.
The only new information I learned over the 30 minutes was that the claim of grave markers in Saskatchewan being removed by a rogue Catholic priest is actually just hearsay from the First Nation itself, and there is no confirmation from the local diocese or any records or evidence to support the claim.
The rest of the information this documentary uses to question and refute the sketchy Kamloops and Cranbrook, BC claims has been publicly available for months.
You would think the two creators could have at least interviewed someone on camera with expertise on ground-penetrating radar to explain the limitations of the science rather than reading scientific papers aloud themselves.
That's what happens when potential interviewees are being dishonest corrupt assholes who would rather dodge the interview entirely than make themselves look corrupt on camera.
The parts about being stonewalled by the Kamloops chief were interesting, especially the physical fence erected around the band office and the band using bullshit COVID and sovereign land narratives to completely insulate themselves from all scrutiny.
But the piece still lacked any substance even though I agree with its skepticism. They didn't mention trying to interview anyone from the Cranbrook or Saskatchewan bands also featured. They didn't seem to interview anyone in person at all. They didn't speak to any First Nations people on record, even if not directly related. They didn't get any experts on Ground Penetrating Radar on record. They didn't interview any historians, local or academic to provide evidence or context.
99% of this documentary was editorial outside of the statement from the Saskatchewan Diocese deacon.
They also spent a lot of time differentiating between "mass graves" and "unmarked graves", which they are ultimately right about sensationalism and dishonesty in journalism. But ultimately, the distinction to most normies doesn't matter because hundreds of individual unmarked graves still doesn't change the narrative that about "genocide" on the part of the federal government and Catholics Church to them.
I think the documentary raises some uncomfortable and important questions about the whole affair that no one else wants to touch. I just don't think the two actually made a strong enough case with their piece to label the whole thing as a "hoax" at this point (though I think it ultimately will be revealed to be).
Well if you watched the video you would see no one from kamloops would talk to them. Are the research papers not enough evidence? I always read these articles about mass graves online but not a single one showed the mass graves. These bodies were never dug up, how do they even know they're children?
You can more-or-less find a research paper abstract that says anything.
It just seems bush league that their refutation of Ground Penetrating Radar was them reading some lines off of a computer screen.
I can see why it might be a hard political climate to find a Canadian GPR expert to go on record, but surely they could have interviewed an impartial expert from abroad to explain how the technique works and its limitations?
Interesting documentary, but pretty light on actual facts or firsthand interviews.
The only new information I learned over the 30 minutes was that the claim of grave markers in Saskatchewan being removed by a rogue Catholic priest is actually just hearsay from the First Nation itself, and there is no confirmation from the local diocese or any records or evidence to support the claim.
The rest of the information this documentary uses to question and refute the sketchy Kamloops and Cranbrook, BC claims has been publicly available for months.
You would think the two creators could have at least interviewed someone on camera with expertise on ground-penetrating radar to explain the limitations of the science rather than reading scientific papers aloud themselves.
That's what happens when potential interviewees are being dishonest corrupt assholes who would rather dodge the interview entirely than make themselves look corrupt on camera.
The parts about being stonewalled by the Kamloops chief were interesting, especially the physical fence erected around the band office and the band using bullshit COVID and sovereign land narratives to completely insulate themselves from all scrutiny.
But the piece still lacked any substance even though I agree with its skepticism. They didn't mention trying to interview anyone from the Cranbrook or Saskatchewan bands also featured. They didn't seem to interview anyone in person at all. They didn't speak to any First Nations people on record, even if not directly related. They didn't get any experts on Ground Penetrating Radar on record. They didn't interview any historians, local or academic to provide evidence or context.
99% of this documentary was editorial outside of the statement from the Saskatchewan Diocese deacon.
They also spent a lot of time differentiating between "mass graves" and "unmarked graves", which they are ultimately right about sensationalism and dishonesty in journalism. But ultimately, the distinction to most normies doesn't matter because hundreds of individual unmarked graves still doesn't change the narrative that about "genocide" on the part of the federal government and Catholics Church to them.
I think the documentary raises some uncomfortable and important questions about the whole affair that no one else wants to touch. I just don't think the two actually made a strong enough case with their piece to label the whole thing as a "hoax" at this point (though I think it ultimately will be revealed to be).
Well if you watched the video you would see no one from kamloops would talk to them. Are the research papers not enough evidence? I always read these articles about mass graves online but not a single one showed the mass graves. These bodies were never dug up, how do they even know they're children?
You can more-or-less find a research paper abstract that says anything.
It just seems bush league that their refutation of Ground Penetrating Radar was them reading some lines off of a computer screen.
I can see why it might be a hard political climate to find a Canadian GPR expert to go on record, but surely they could have interviewed an impartial expert from abroad to explain how the technique works and its limitations?