YT description continues:

'Arthorsson, who is a civil engineer who works in Trinidad and Tobago had visited his family in the Icelandic capital but was returning home to be with his fiancée on the Caribbean island.
After police removed him from the flight he was taken to Jamaica Hospital where he was treated for alcohol poisoning and luckily for him, Federal authorities declined to prosecute the case.
It was while aboard the New York-bound flight that Arthorsson was duct-taped to his seat by fellow passengers after attacking one woman, spitting on other passengers and screaming the plane was going to crash.
A friend of one of the observing passengers, Andy Ellwood of New York, posted a picture of the subdued flyer to his Tumblr with an account of the incident.
The 'passenger drank all of his duty free liquor on the flight from Iceland to JFK yesterday,' Ellwood wrote.'

You're assuming a reasonable person. A suicide bomber is not reasonable. Maybe this person's family is already dead to american drone attacks (or whatnot), which set him on the path of wanting to destroy america. My point is, you can't assume these kinds of people act in a reasonable way, or that they even know that everyone has weapons. Avoiding nuclear disaster from the cold war was only done because people were smart and cautious; if it had been George W instead of JFK at the cuba crisis, would the same thing have happened? Maybe, maybe not - it doesn't take much for it all to come crashing down. What if it had been Saddam Hussein instead of JFK?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Reagan agreed to tax hikes in exchange for spending cuts.
The taxocrats lied; there were no spending cuts.
Nothing's changed there.


Reagan is one of the reasons the current crash happened.

Also there is no way Ryan and Romney could be as horrible as JFK. Probably the greatest Mass Murderer the US has ever had with his war of aggression in South Vietnam.

>> ^dirkdeagler7:

>> ^dannym3141:
Firstly, i'm not happy with his or the writer in the story's understanding of the words "quantum" and "dimension". Especially the former. And secondly i'm questioning that any ..."quantum effect"... occured because he made a huge assumption that the umbrella man was involved. I can think of a billion reasons why it might have happened (however unlikely).
This is an interesting story so i have no idea why he started with the quantum spiel. Heartwarming story about a conspiracy theorist who was cured

The way i read it is, if you understand some about physics you may think you know the universe and it all makes sense. However if you start to look deeper and at the minor details of the universe, aka the quantum level, things start to become much less logical and intuitive. Therefore you must dig hard to find the true nature of things at this level, and often times the truth will be more strange or surprising than you ever imagined.
When people were first discovering that there was a charged particle orbiting a nucleus do you think they assumed it was actually a cloud or probability and not a constant circling point? Of course not that would seem absurd at first, much as it would be absurd to think that the umbrella man was a guy protesting actions by JFKs father!


That's a decent explanation of what he was trying to say, but i still think he said it poorly. A quantum dimension? A very small dimension? I hope it wasn't foolish to misunderstand.

I agree that it would be absurd to assume he was protesting JFK's father but that's not the point being made is it? I thought the point being made was that it was absurd to think anything other than him being there for 'shenanigans', which i think is bullcrap. I think it's an expected result to find he's there innocently.

>> ^dannym3141:

Firstly, i'm not happy with his or the writer in the story's understanding of the words "quantum" and "dimension". Especially the former. And secondly i'm questioning that any ..."quantum effect"... occured because he made a huge assumption that the umbrella man was involved. I can think of a billion reasons why it might have happened (however unlikely).
This is an interesting story so i have no idea why he started with the quantum spiel. Heartwarming story about a conspiracy theorist who was cured


The way i read it is, if you understand some about physics you may think you know the universe and it all makes sense. However if you start to look deeper and at the minor details of the universe, aka the quantum level, things start to become much less logical and intuitive. Therefore you must dig hard to find the true nature of things at this level, and often times the truth will be more strange or surprising than you ever imagined.

When people were first discovering that there was a charged particle orbiting a nucleus do you think they assumed it was actually a cloud or probability and not a constant circling point? Of course not that would seem absurd at first, much as it would be absurd to think that the umbrella man was a guy protesting actions by JFKs father!

No surprise 9/11 topped the list. Really questionable choices. I thought #2 would be the moon landing for sure. 9/11 could have been paired with bin Laden's death as one mention (two sides of one larger story). I think the announcement of JFK's assassination and his subsequent funeral were close enough together to warrant one event. Same is true with the ongoing drama that was OJ Simpson's original trial. JFK should have ranked higher than Simpson.

Casey Anthony has no right to this list at all, and I'd replace her with the 1989 World Series, where the SF Giants and Oakland A's (a fact notable to bay residents) were interrupted by an extremely lethal earthquake. Condensing references would allow the moon landing to occupy the #2 spot and a few more events to be selected.

That's what they get for letting a poll of 1077 randoms populate a list like this.

I'm as giddy as the next fella about, gasp, Roberts putting his stamp on this. I'm still left wondering, when did Barack lose the ability to give an inspiring speech? I mean, it happened so slowly, but over the course of 4 years he went from JFK to John Kerry.

Please explain to me how this is not rape; and I'll consider changing the description.

To me, basically: no (non-coerced) consent = rape. The girl's frightened silence does not equal consent.>> ^maestro156:

Clearly seduction and not rape. You should be more careful about throwing that word around lest it lose its impact.

Plenty of douches have caused girls to cry recalling sex with them, especially when they lost their virginity to them. Doesn't make it rape, though.

>> ^DuoJet:

This was rape. The woman still cries when she recalls it. I know that if I were behaving this way, I would feel like a rapist. Then again, moral turpitude kinda seemed to run in the Kennedy family.
And I'm betting she was neither the first nor the last.

Dude, seriously?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Despicable as this was, the left is more eager to bury JFK's views on taxation.
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
– Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference
More JFK tax quotes here.

@Porksandwich
Snuff or not, it might be a good idea to put a clear warning in the description. Plenty of people would probably choose not to watch this if they knew what they were going to see.

The snuff rule has gradually gotten softer and softer, it seems. It used to be that anything depicting real deaths was forbidden unless it was of great historical value (eg: JFK assassination, 9/11). Later it was unless it was "important" (eg: soldiers gunning down civilians in Iraq). That was eventually used to justify posting ordinary murder and manslaughter by claiming we were helping bring the perpetrator to justice by spreading these videos around. These were often discarded after everyone had already seen them and argued about whether they belong here.

I'm not sure, but I think part of the problem has been that Videosift's advertisers' TOS say you can't have porn or snuff content. If that's the case, we can argue about the definition all we want and it won't make a lick of difference.

>> ^marinara:

I'm really tired of youtube. This is why we need net-neutrality. So we can just leave youtube behind.
And this is happening more and more, literally 2 days ago, they took down a JFK conspiracy video. supposedly due to violent content (a certain gunshot)
really this is a huge problem.
It only takes a few takedowns... to shift the expectations of people. People will start editing what they say, just so there is no chance of being taken down.


FYI, governments have bad track records with keeping things open and free, ask Bradly Manning.

I'm really tired of youtube. This is why we need net-neutrality. So we can just leave youtube behind.

And this is happening more and more, literally 2 days ago, they took down a JFK conspiracy video. supposedly due to violent content (a certain gunshot)

really this is a huge problem.
It only takes a few takedowns... to shift the expectations of people. People will start editing what they say, just so there is no chance of being taken down.

Despicable as this was, the left is more eager to bury JFK's views on taxation.

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

More JFK tax quotes here.

I'm gonna' have to go with not rape on this one. Doesn't make it okay though.

Wasn't it Henry Kissinger who said that power was the ultimate aphrodisiac? Combine that with the fact that JFK was handsome and a very well practiced lothario and the result is an admittedly disturbing but successful seduction.