60 Minutes Segment - Nurse says Duncan died on Saturday, not Wednesday

So what do you make of the claim that the vid was altered? Seems that that is where the mistrust should be to me.

reply to: AmethystWolf

PS Love the amethyst wolves. Pretty picture.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Because it is a news program with 4 sections. This section only had 15 minutes allocated including commercials. They cut out stuff to get it in what they think will drive ratings, and tear-jerker stuff drives ratings. They cut out about 30 seconds of him talking about stuff nobody would care about.

There was no intent to deceive, that is just how editing works...

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
So what do you make of the claim that the vid was altered? Seems that that is where the mistrust should be to me.

reply to: AmethystWolf

PS Love the amethyst wolves. Pretty picture.

Again, see above. The video wasn't "altered" to trick people, it was altered to fit everything they wanted into the segment. They didn't realize there was a conspiracy niche who would spam their comments sections about how there were lies about when Duncan died...so they put up the full video to assuage those rumors.

Edit: And before people start claiming this...NO, THEY DID NOT RE-SHOOT THE INTERVIEW. If you play the originally aired interview and the unedited one they match frame for frame except for the cut portion. This would be impossible if it was a re-shoot.

a reply to: AmethystWolf

Yes, the only one who reported that he died Saturday was the Israeli news site. Anyone else who reported it picked it up from that site as their source. That site had it wrong and they corrected it.

Sometimes news outlets get things wrong. They print retractions if they are a good outlets.

Actually the Israelis news source was on the 5th which was Sunday and the Reuters source they linked only said he was fighting for his life. There was only that one story that said he was dead. And we still have to acknowledge that the video which appears to say he died Saturday was altered.

a reply to: AmethystWolf

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

I did not mean to imply that it was intentional - just that when it was edited the result was confusing.
I am not sure where the cut version came from, so it's difficult to know for certain what the intention was.
If it was just edited to fit a time slot on a show, they may not have noticed the result would be deceiving.
This is the original uncut version:
www.cbsnews.com...

They weren't really his family so they are not entitled to private medical records. A girlfriend even if they are engaged is not family. The part of the story I don't buy is that Duncan came here to get married. He came because he knew he was at risk of Ebola and thought he had a better chance at survival here.

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
But it is true that no one at his apartment complex got sick. There was no way they could cover that up. No one on his plane or at the airports he traveled through, no one who handled his bags got sick either. If he was further along in his illness why didn't anyone else get sick? I'm pretty sure that the two nurses got sick not because he was further along than thought, though there is no specific timeline from when symptoms present and death occurs, I'm pretty sure they got sick because they were inadequately protected.

What would be the point of lying about two nurses getting sick if they didn't get sick? Wouldn't it have been better if Duncan was the only one?

They didn't need to show that people could recover from Ebola. There were already people in west Africa who had recovered. The world already knew that some people survive it and they sure didn't need to enforce the idea that recovery in the United states was more likely. That would just open the floodgates for sick people to get here and get here fast.

a reply to: texasgirl

I'm sorry, I just can't say it's true no one got sick in that apartment. There's no proof that they did and there's no proof that they didn't. I live here in Dallas and the reports I do hear on my local news have other people speaking for Louise. We have not actually seen her and the clips that do show someone who is 'supposedly' Louise completely block her face. I also think Judge Jenkins would be proudly parading her around to prove that you can't catch it from someone showing symptoms.

As for the cover-up it could be much easier to handle one family of ONE ebola victim but when the nurses got sick it might've been too much to handle and keep a lid on.

That's just my opinion.

Thanks I see you are correct. They should have been a little more careful what they edited out because this wound up being poorly interpreted. Now there are people who believe the news was altered after the fact. a reply to: raymundoko

Yes I'm getting that now LOL too much time on ATS has made me think the worst first. I actually didn't think the news station who shot the vid altered it. I thought some outsider had altered it and then presented it in a blog or forum on their own. That it was an edit by the source went completely over my head. I need a time out. Some Disney cartoons maybe.

a reply to: BlueAjah

If anyone else had gotten sick the news would have been all over it. Relatives of any other people contracting the disease from his apartment complex would not have been quiet about it. Other tenants, neighbors, they couldn't all be silenced by g men . a reply to: texasgirl

a reply to: BlueAjah

I believe the cut version was what originally aired, because the link in the OP was to the 60 minutes interview. The interview currently up now is about 4 minutes longer than it was previously. (I think it was 12 minutes when I watched it the first time, now it is 16:30)

There are other parts I noticed that got cut as well, like a part where the male nurse is sitting next to the female nurse and he is just kind of staring off into the distance. I don't remember that the first time I watched it.

However, the part that got cut with the section in question was so obviously a cut because it went from the nurses face, to the interviewer who had a solemn look on his face, then back to the nurse...

So that is why I was so boggled when people were saying they didn't see a cut. It was literally a full cut AWAY from the nurse...

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
If anyone else had gotten sick the news would have been all over it. Relatives of any other people contracting the disease from his apartment complex would not have been quiet about it. Other tenants, neighbors, they couldn't all be silenced by g men . a reply to: texasgirl

No, no, no...They got moved to a private, gated community away from neighbors, remember? It was an undisclosed location and even CNN's Anderson Cooper arrived in Dallas and couldn't get any kind of interview with her. He had to go through the pastor.

I'm not saying everyone in that apartment got sick. But I am saying I find it really hard to believe that Louise didn't, especially since she slept next to him and took care of him while he was vomiting and having diarrhea. She even handled the towels and put them in the bag herself.

As far as the news being all over it, I disagree. There was a media clampdown here in Dallas. There were several reports of other unrealated people getting sick that the news reported before being scrubbed. One of my prime examples was the woman at the Dart Rail station who vomited that I've mentioned in several other threads. She claimed to be on a watch list and lived in the same apartment building as Duncan. That story changed so many times it was laughable.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

I honestly don't know what to make of it. I don't understand so much of what they've done during this outbreak. I just know that I've been carrying a feeling of dread for weeks now - and I don't trust our government to have our best interests at heart. I love the wolves too, thanks :-)

BTW, my replies to Ray are noticeably absent I'm sure. I'm not going to engage him since I've seen too much distraction in other threads. So, it isn't an accident that I am not addressing his comments.

a reply to: AmethystWolf

Right, because ignoring facts helps

Edit, I love how certain types of people think me bringing facts to a thread are a distractions...I don't insult people, yet I get insulted. Sometimes the truth hurts, and if you want to think I am insulting you are someone else by posting factual information then that's an issue with you. If you didn't want to address me, don't address me, but posting that you aren't going to address me is simply childish on your part as I haven't done anything disruptive in this thread.

Look at the "Inside Info" thread as an example. Not one piece of his "inside information" was correct in any way. Yet people were jumping down my throat for pointing that out.

So if facts, logic and reason are a distraction from your wish for doom porn, then by all means enjoy your dread. I fail to see how anything I posted in this thread was a distraction from anything other than the fact that the OP was unwittingly wrong.

originally posted by: texasgirl

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
If anyone else had gotten sick the news would have been all over it. Relatives of any other people contracting the disease from his apartment complex would not have been quiet about it. Other tenants, neighbors, they couldn't all be silenced by g men . a reply to: texasgirl

A lot of people have asked that question. Can anyone explain? ProMed including the PromMedMail moderator.

"...[Can anyone explain how the group of people who lived for days in an apartment so heavily contaminated by index patient D. that the entire contents had to be removed and burned have survived without getting infected? I hope they will be tested for ebolavirus antibodies. - Mod.JW]..."

edit on 28-10-2014 by k3d59 because: Correct display

No idea what to think of this.

a reply to: Eagleyedobserver

Read the whole thread?

What benefit would anyone gain from declaring the death 3 days later than it actually happened? Was there something going on between Saturday and Wednesday that would have been affected by announcing the death when it happened rather than when they actually announced it?

originally posted by: babybunnies
What benefit would anyone gain from declaring the death 3 days later than it actually happened? Was there something going on between Saturday and Wednesday that would have been affected by announcing the death when it happened rather than when they actually announced it?

THAT could be the question of the decade !!



Obama is involved.

Concise and timely decisions are difficult for him.

Too many tangents and deflections to consider.

originally posted by: babybunnies
What benefit would anyone gain from declaring the death 3 days later than it actually happened? Was there something going on between Saturday and Wednesday that would have been affected by announcing the death when it happened rather than when they actually announced it?

Among other things, a football game and the State Fair both of which are huge revenue draws.

So far, we seem to have been lucky in Duncan's case only producing 2 secondary infections and no (Pham's boyfriend ever surface?) tertiary cases; has Ohio completed it's 21 day watch?

Now we are all watching New York for any potential fallout from Doc Spencer's escapades.