I don't think lidar can do that. They'd need to actually do a dig.
Also this guy writes like an absolute sleazy buffoon: https://www.dorchesterreview.ca/blogs/news/in-kamloops-not-one-body-has-been-found
Tried to throw up smoke about China to distract from the fact that there is literally no new information in his article.
Brings up questions of uncertainty as if they invalidate estimates, rather than literally being part the original claims, part of thinking in terms of confidence I tervals and the like. His grand conclusion? Exactly what was originally stated, again: that there may have been some double counts of deaths. Some.
It is notable that he never mentions sources of undercounting, such as poor record-keeping, attributing deaths to natural causes that were from neglect or abuse (people covering their asses), or counting children as missing. He only has room for speculation when it comes to downplaying white settler violence.
I leave this absurdity without comment:
It is likely that this methodological gap relates to the years prior to 1950 because the death rate recorded by the Commission in residential schools from 1921 to 1950 (named and unnamed deaths) is twice as high as that of Canadian youth in the general population aged five to fourteen for the same years.
In short, this is pure settler copium. Sophistry. This is how academic people act and write when they want to impress a point they can't support, spread an opinion having little to do with actual knowledge or truth.
Lidar is literally fucking lasers. They're just so media brained that they use it as a buzzword because they've never even done basic analysis of the words they use.
I don't think lidar can do that. They'd need to actually do a dig.
Also this guy writes like an absolute sleazy buffoon: https://www.dorchesterreview.ca/blogs/news/in-kamloops-not-one-body-has-been-found
Tried to throw up smoke about China to distract from the fact that there is literally no new information in his article.
Brings up questions of uncertainty as if they invalidate estimates, rather than literally being part the original claims, part of thinking in terms of confidence I tervals and the like. His grand conclusion? Exactly what was originally stated, again: that there may have been some double counts of deaths. Some.
It is notable that he never mentions sources of undercounting, such as poor record-keeping, attributing deaths to natural causes that were from neglect or abuse (people covering their asses), or counting children as missing. He only has room for speculation when it comes to downplaying white settler violence.
I leave this absurdity without comment:
In short, this is pure settler copium. Sophistry. This is how academic people act and write when they want to impress a point they can't support, spread an opinion having little to do with actual knowledge or truth.
Lidar is literally fucking lasers. They're just so media brained that they use it as a buzzword because they've never even done basic analysis of the words they use.