I did not get that from the article.

> Also some kind of weird conspiracy theory that there was no systematic problem in children murdered in those orphanages and schools in Canada.

The talk did not present any evidence for the particular school that was the topic of the talk.

> But to give this individual any place in the discussion seems like asking Kanye West to come and talk in a round table about Zionism or something.

That conclusion is totally unwarranted. It's precisely the kind of attack I was expecting to hit her, just not so soon, and not here. The author is worried about the state of her field, because so many of the conference talks were highly subjective, and you almost make a Godwin by comparing her to an unhinged individual who made racist remarks to a large audience.

GPR is not magic.

When ground penetrating radar does show a disturbance, that is not proof of a burial site and everybody presenting it as such, probably has an agenda as well. Even in the context of the (highly problematic) "orphanages", a ground disturbance alone does not make a grave site.

So being sceptical until at least an exploratory dig at that point, is not necessarily a "weird conspiracy theory that there was no systematic problem" but justified scepticism, whether GPR data was interpreted correctly.

Edit: Being sceptical of the existence of a burial site at this specific location is not the same as seeing no systematic problem in that system of "schooling" in Canada.

Seriously?