Prisoners of Our Own Ignorance: A Journey Into the World of Agenda Driven Conspiracies and the Stepping Stone Subjects That Helped Me Understand Them

By Ian Grimwood

Join me on an open-minded investigation into the much-maligned world of conspiracy theories as I seek to discover just how crazy they really are. Our journey will take us into the shadowy enclaves of the secret societies, the underlying agenda of the New World Order and the murky depths of hidden power that exercises its control from behind the scenes. This book is designed to make you question everything you have ever been told by a controlling system that seeks to keep us ignorant and divided. There are hundreds of links provided that will introduce you to information that will shatter your preconceptions. Buckle up, open your mind and leave the tin foil hat behind.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Jun 20, 2019
• ISBN: 9780244794606

Book preview

Prisoners of Our Own Ignorance: A Journey Into the World of Agenda Driven Conspiracies and the Stepping Stone Subjects That Helped Me Understand Them

Prisoners of Our Own Ignorance: A Journey Into the World of Agenda Driven Conspiracies and the Stepping Stone Subjects That Helped Me Understand Them.

By Ian Grimwood

©Copyright Ian Grimwood 2019

All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.

This book is intended as an opinion piece and it should not be construed that I am offering any specific advice regarding financial, medical or any other matters to which I am not qualified to do so. Any allegations made in this publication concerning individuals, institutions or corporations are merely speculative expressions of the author’s personal opinion and remain open ended in their nature.

Published by Lulu.com

First Printing: 2019

ISBN: 978-0-244-79460-6

Cover image by: © Martin Sleap

Author’s email: [e-mail]

INTRODUCTION

If I were to tell you that Elephants are a type of fish what would your reaction be? I should imagine that you would assume I was joking and laugh at the very notion. If I then persisted with this assertion stating that I was indeed being serious how might your attitude change towards me? I think it likely that you would furrow your brow and question the evidence on which I was basing this bizarre claim. If I responded by saying that I can clearly see their gills and scales and was confused as to why you could not, I think you would quite rightly conclude that I was suffering from some form of delusion or breakdown of my mental faculties. Furthermore, it would not take you very long to reach this conclusion because every fibre of your being knows full well that Elephants do not have gills or scales. All the data that you have accrued during your lifetime regarding Elephants tells you unequivocally that this is simply not true. Case closed you might say.

Okay. Allow me to present another scenario. Imagine if you had been told since childhood that Elephants were a type of fish and that their ears were actually gills and their skin was composed of scales. Imagine if every school book, documentary, news program, newspaper, government source, scientific source and indeed every form of media reinforced this point. Try to picture the scene in which all the people around you believed that Elephants were in fact fish. Now you might be a bit of a rebel, anti-establishment and so on and this may lead you to question what you are being told by figures of authority. You’re not going to be schooled by ‘The Man’ as it were. You would rather listen to your heroes of music, film and entertainment because they don’t represent the system…right? Imagine then the situation where all of these role models echoed the same information; that Elephants were indeed fish and to question otherwise was considered uncool and labelled you as crazy.

Let’s take this one step further and say that it became illegal to question whether or not Elephants were fish and to do so would label you not only as a social pariah but also an enemy of the state. At what point would you actually question your own mind and conclude that they might be right? What would it take for the weight of consensus to overwhelm your sense of logic, discernment and inner knowing? I think under these circumstances the vast majority of people would capitulate and simply accept what they were told. After-all, life is complicated enough and far too busy to worry about silly little details such as this. What possible reason could the establishment have for lying to us in the first place? On this basis anyone subsequently questioning the powers that be are then tarred with the ‘Elephant Theorist’ brush and dismissed by society as a whole.

I would hope that you have understood my rather heavy handed analogy and can recognise its relevance to modern society. I do believe that we are living in a time in which there stands an enormous Elephant in the room, gill-less and scale-less but nonetheless very present. I would suggest that freedom of speech and freedom of thought are in great danger of becoming historical platitudes as opposed to innate rights that should be defended by anyone who does not wish to see tyranny prevail. For too long we have accepted in blind faith the information fed to us by the ‘Powers that be’ and as our rights get increasingly diminished this information deserves greater scrutiny than ever. In all walks of life fewer and fewer people control more and more of the power. Nowhere is this more troubling than in the field of the media. Anyone attempting to question the status quo or the accepted paradigm is immediately stamped with the label ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ and laughed out of town. Just pause for a second and consider what this really means. To question those in power constitutes a mental illness. Whose interests does this ludicrous state of affairs really serve? The answer to this is obvious; those who created the paradigm in the first place.

This book is a record of my personal journey as I hopped from one subject to another discovering at every stage that the narrative fed to us via mainstream sources was invariably false. In some cases it was the omission of vital information that startled me. Entire stories began to surface that I was simply not aware of. I’m not talking about vague sensationalist rumours but rather demonstrably provable, well documented stories that should have made front page news in every newspaper on every continent. I began to question why this might be the case. This line of enquiry led me into a world of conspiracy and hidden agendas that I did not recognise as the reality that I had been conditioned to accept by the institutions that hold power over us.

Throughout this book I have provided links to information that should be seen as an introduction to a particular topic, a gateway intended to pique your interest and draw your attention to a subject that you may not be aware of. In some instances it might be a very familiar topic in which case I will be exposing information that may drastically change your opinion regarding it. I do not claim to be an expert researcher or historian. In many ways the entire purpose of this book is to illustrate how anyone has the ability and the right to question what we are told by the gatekeepers of information. With the advent of the internet we all have access to a phenomenal repository of information, some good, some bad and some indifferent. If we allow those Sentinels of the Intelligencia, corporations and government institutions to remain in their gatekeeping roles then we probably deserve everything we get.

I can only testify that the process of embarking on this journey has empowered me personally and has undoubtedly made me a better person. I cannot guarantee that it will have the same effect on you but I will make this promise: You will be more informed by the end of it and in a much better positon to decide whether or not to blindly trust what the system tells you.

As the reader progresses through the chapters they will notice a steady evolution to the narrative as I develop and review my theories, reacting to the ingress of new information. I have tried to capture the organic and incremental nature of this process as it occurred when I first researched each subject. This will inevitably make me sound rather naive at times, especially to the seasoned researchers amongst you, but I believe it is important to document how this information gradually breaks down your understanding of the accepted paradigm. Please remain open minded while reading this book and forgive me for any grammatical errors you might find. Be prepared to have your pre-conceptions shattered….welcome to the rabbit hole.

Chapter One

Down the Rabbit Hole

"There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what

is not true; the other is to refuse to accept what is true"

Soren Kierkegaard: Danish philosopher (1813-1855)

No one likes the feeling of being fooled. It is the process of being fooled that makes us foolish. With this realisation of viewing ourselves as foolish come the natural defence mechanisms we all employ to mitigate our culpability in that process. This is when we lie to ourselves by creating excuses, deflecting blame or wilfully ignoring hard-to-swallow facts. In doing so that lie gets projected onto the world around us, creating a false reality that becomes our accepted truth. When we do this en-masse, as a species, a new paradigm is produced that we all then adhere to like unspoken rules of an enormous game.

In order for this deception to be perpetuated, we need constant confirmation of the lies that led us to be fooled in the first place. This can only be achieved when the sources of our learning and information work as a network, reinforcing that false narrative to such an extent that to question it is to be considered abnormal or even dangerous.

Our understanding of how the world/universe works is literally handed to us at every stage. Fed to us from birth. As children, we trust those older and wiser than us to guide and train our minds. As adolescents we still look to our elders but that part of us that needs to fly the nest increasingly rebels and therefore we seek confirmation of identity through film, music and sports stars. At this time our peer group is also enormously influential because we have already been trained to know that swimming against the tide can lead to isolation from that group. Once we obtain adulthood we look to government, institution and corporation to provide us with answers and solutions. Religion is just another manifestation of this.

A person who considers themselves informed because they read a paper every morning, listen to Radio 4 and watch the news of an evening may like to reflect on the fact that this amounts to nothing more than the regurgitation of information covering the handful of stories that are considered worthy of your attention, selected by organisations that serve as the mouthpiece of the establishment. Thousands of important events occur throughout the world every day but the amount of exposure a story receives is dictated by an agenda. Therefore the general public is permitted to see only that which serves this agenda. Due to the fact that the vast majority of people obtain information in this way their view of life is inevitably mirrored by their friends, family and work colleagues. This reaffirming confirmation serves only to perpetuate the cycle.

Within this construct, a certain amount of individuality is permitted. We are allowed to choose who to vote for, what papers we read and what icons we follow in the sports and entertainment industry but when the core sources for these choices are centralised to such a degree the basic framework that constitutes the accepted norm remains the same. We are constantly told that certain key institutions hold the answers: Science is controlled by the scientists, health is controlled by the medical industry, history is the domain of historians and financial matters are governed and explained by economists.

The message here is clear. We have been conditioned from birth to relinquish sovereignty over our own minds, to constantly look to an authority figure for answers and to accept the current groupthink. This is by no means a modern phenomenon. Throughout history, the dissemination of information and knowledge has been tightly controlled by the ruling classes. Ancient Shaman would serve as the gatekeepers to mystic teachings, religious leaders such as popes have outlawed thoughts and ideas that oppose their belief system and labelled them heretical. Monarchs have dictated the laws of the land to their subjects, failure to comply with these demands resulting in punishment. Some of the most brilliant minds in history have been suppressed, imprisoned or murdered simply for refusing to follow the contemporary script. The recorded information itself has been targeted such as the burning of the great library in Alexandria, Egypt. All of this teaches us that those with power have always controlled the flow of information in order to subjugate those without.

In 1415 the ruling classes of Europe were stunned when, at the battle of Agincourt, a huge proportion of the French nobility were wiped out by an English army that was vastly inferior in numbers, the majority of which comprised of archers as opposed to the tank like knights. These archers, however, wielded a weapon that was more or less exclusive to their island at that time, the longbow. Much more powerful than the re-curve bows found in Asia and with a greatly increased rate of fire compared to crossbows, the devastating effectiveness of this weapon was certainly the decisive factor in the English victory. But an important question to ask is, Who was it using the bows? Well, that would be the lower classes. Basically, peasants with little to no armour brandishing these simple but effective weapons were suddenly able to take on highly skilled knights in full plate armour raised exclusively from the higher classes. In battle at least, this was a great social leveller in a world rigidly structured against the very concept of parity between the classes.

I believe in modern times we have our own version of the longbow. It does not take the form of weapon, however. It comes to us as a tool and that tool is called the internet. Never before has so much information been readily available to the masses. It is classless and does not discriminate based on religion. If you can connect to it then you have at your fingertips more potential information than any library in existence. There is however a duality of purpose here. Just as the television, radio and film have been used, hijacked if you will, to influence the masses, the internet can be utilised in the same manner. It is, therefore, incumbent on all of us to develop our sense of discernment and critical thinking to navigate the labyrinth of information presented to us. Sadly these skills are not taught to us at school and, in fact, I would argue they are currently being discouraged. We must reclaim the ability to think for ourselves. To question what we are told and evaluate source information. This is the foundation of an open, thinking mind. To quote Aristotle, It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without adopting it. If we ignore this sage advice we may find ourselves sleepwalking into a version of reality that is created for us and not by us. You have been warned.

My intention with this book is to lay out a road map of my personal journey during the course of the last couple of years to the present day. It could be termed as my 'awakening' but I prefer to think of it as self-education. The term 'awakened' has possible religious connotations attached to it so I feel I should clarify from the outset that I am not affiliated with any religious group and, in fact, the very concept of organised religion is abhorrent to me. The same applies to politics. Adherence to any preconceived structure of belief, in my opinion, is to limit the individual's ability to progress their own thoughts. There are many terms for people such as myself, 'conspiracy theorists', 'truth seekers', 'tin foil hat wearers' etc. Frankly, I couldn't care less about how others choose to define me. If it helps them to label me in a particular way then who am I to judge? That is part of their journey and I am only qualified to tell you about mine.

Each topic I discuss can be seen as a landmark on that journey and should not be considered as a full analysis of the subject. There are many, far more qualified researchers than myself, that have dissected each of these cases every which way from Sunday so I would hope that my touching upon these landmarks would encourage the reader to expand their own understanding through further research. This is simply an account of how it was for me and a record of the enormous changes I have gone through during that process. It would be more accurate for me to say 'going through' as this is definitely a work in progress. I feel in a constant state of flux, not in a negative or chaotic way but in more of a fluid, agile manner as I react to and mould myself around new truths and understandings.

I do have a sense that there is a culmination of events occurring right now, that we are living in extremely important times, perhaps the most important in our history. By the time anyone may read these words the world might have changed unrecognisably for us all. Either way, I would hope that this book may help to guide others to their own research and to their own conclusions. If your conclusion is different to mine that's fine. I am not claiming to be omniscient or to have any insider knowledge. I just comment on the information I have accessed and I'm positive each of these subjects could be broken down continuously to increasingly minuscule levels; such is the quantity and range of data available to anyone with a mind to search for it. The important point here is to equip yourself with an understanding of these topics that enables you to have a voice in the conversation. It is a conversation that more and more people are having and it tends to start with a statement followed by a question, Every day the world around me makes less sense. What on earth is going on?

I have always had an inquisitive mind. To question the authority figures in my life such as parents, teachers and bosses has always been a part of my nature. It is a trait that has ill-prepared me for a life of blind obedience, for which I am eternally grateful, but it has made the rungs on life's ladder pretty slippery for me. I did okay at school. I had fun. Lots of friends. No real problems, but even then I knew I was not really applying myself. Has potential but could do better. I did just enough to get through my exams, stayed in the 6th form for a couple of weeks or so, then decided the lure of earning money was too great and subsequently left to work full time at the garden centre where I had been working a weekend job. I was around 16 years old, gregarious to the point of cocky, egotistical to the point of insecurity and on the constant lookout for sex, drugs and rock and roll. This became the template for my life until I was around 25. I should note that there was a constant backbone of work and exercise running through my life around this time that served as a counterweight to all the terrible things I was putting my body through. I had several different jobs in those years but I always had work. I worked in warehouses, builders merchants, building sites, too many to mention. At the age of 25, I started to spend an increasingly large amount of time training. I was fit as a fiddle and it helped me clean up my act as I directed more and more energy into this pursuit. Another thing laced through the fabric of those years was intermittent bouts of depression. The exercise would help enormously, especially combative training. I healed through exhaustion.

By the latter part of 2007, I had reached a point with work where I realised I shouldn't be doing what I was doing. The whole world of building sites turned me into something I was not. I was quick to anger, quick to fight and generally prone to confrontation. I couldn't stand the 'don't care less' attitude. I hated the casual racism. The overall atmosphere of F*** you! would grind on me daily. I decided to do something about it and started considering a complete career change. To cut a long story short...it's 2008 and I was at the beginning of a three-year apprenticeship to become a woodsman/coppice worker. I was living in a VW camper van, that did not drive, in a small woodland just at the base of the Wrekin in Shropshire. I had no running water, no power supply, a composting toilet and a feeling of freedom that I had never experienced before. I lived in the van for a year then upgraded to a tiny caravan that was home for a further year. Easily the happiest, most fulfilling two years of my life.

I met a woman on one of the training courses and we eventually ended up moving in together into a small cottage in a nearby town. This turned out to be a mistake, as within a year we were to break up in a very sad and messy way. I moved out and within the course of the next few months  I had a couple of serious accidents at work that bashed me around quite a bit and, as a separate issue, I had a finger amputated on my right hand from a previous injury. Things were not going well. I had to sell my chainsaws along with most of my tools and when that money ran out I had to wave a white flag. I claimed benefits for a while but when I was signed back on 'fit for work' my options were limited. I had to move out of where I was staying and eventually ended up calling my Mum in Bournemouth to ask if I could stay for a while, you know, just long enough so I can get on my feet...... Five years later and I have endured soul destroying periods of unemployment. I have been sacked from one job and have left another due to a breakdown. I have had numerous fallings out with friends and family and yet, as I sit here writing this, I can honestly say that during the course of the last couple of years I have become a more tolerant, compassionate and intelligent individual. During this time I have essentially been educating myself and that process has undoubtedly made me a better person.

Around a year ago I was suffering from a trapped nerve in my spine which made work increasingly difficult. I was a ball of mental and physical tension that had been building in me since 2012. I had periods off of work where I was completely inactive for two weeks then I would slowly return to normal duties, regain my fitness and then next month it would happen again. Even when I was working my tolerance levels were rock bottom and any small injustice or poor practice that I perceived to be perpetrated around me would cause me to have outbursts of anger. Inevitably I ended up with an ulcer and eventually had a complete breakdown. The doctor did what doctors do best and dosed me up on anti-depressants for my mood, painkillers for my back and tablets for my ulcer. I also had two, half-hour sessions of well-meaning but basically pointless counselling. I only did about four months on the medication as I became aware of a sense of chemical contamination building up inside me. I stopped taking everything and I'm glad I did. I'm not saying that everyone should throw out their prescription meds right away but I can only say that it worked for me.

So it was here, during this transitional period that my journey began. I started flicking through YouTube, out of boredom mainly, but also because the T.V. had long since lost its appeal to me and there was only so much reading I could do in a day. I would jump around from subject to subject randomly at first, just playing with the concept of choice. I was learning that when you can get past the myriad of nonsense that creates the weather system within YouTube, there are some microclimates that exist as safe havens. I really enjoyed hopping around these various subjects and quickly learnt how to follow up leads up with online searches. It was during one of these searches that my interest was piqued by a video regarding JFK's assassination. Little did I know that with one click of that play button it would ignite a curiosity in me that has grown from subject to subject. With that one selection, I had opted to go down the rabbit hole. I didn't know how far it would end up taking me but I can report that after several years doing just that, in my opinion, the world is not all it seems and is, in fact, one giant rabbit warren of holes upon holes upon holes.

Chapter Two

JFK

"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and

open society; and we are as a people inherently and

historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths,

and to secret proceedings." John F. Kennedy: (1917-1963)

The term 'conspiracy theorist' was actually created as a rebuttal to the incredulous response generated when the conclusions of the investigation into the assassination, the Warren Commission, were announced. https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report From the outset, questions were asked and doubts had been raised. The 'magic bullet' theory that seven wounds were created by a single bullet was laughable. http://22november1963.org.uk/what-is-the-jfk-assassination-magic-bullet-theory

No explanation was offered as to why a surgeon, totally inexperienced in performing autopsies was instructed to do one on the President of the United States then burn his notes afterwards. No mention of why the secret service clearly did not follow standard protocols of Presidential protection on that day. Did Oswald work for the C.I.A. and did he know Jack Ruby? The findings of the commission were unsatisfactory, to say the least. Why were they ignoring the obvious incongruities of the evidence? Why were they dogmatically sticking to a version of events that was not supported by the evidence? Why had they not pursued certain leads regarding the connection between some of the individuals in the case? Confidence in the commission's ability and even desire to carry out a thorough investigation was waning and questions were beginning to be asked about the agenda and motives of those involved. Alan Dulles, for example, had been sacked from his position as head of the C.I.A. by JFK himself. How was this man considered a suitably independent and unprejudiced candidate for the commission in the first place? There was obviously a cover-up being enacted. This can be clearly stated, not just with the power of hindsight but even contemporary minds were questioning the official rhetoric. The most famous of these was Jim Garrison.

The U.S. government created the phrase, 'conspiracy theories', to easily box up and label those ideas that fell outside the accepted narrative and to identify those that held these beliefs as, 'conspiracy theorists'. This term was understood to have negative connotations from the outset. Synonymous with 'nut job' or 'fruit case'. They stigmatised the very act of questioning the state and created a neat little box into which anyone doing so could be placed. Genius. This meant that ultimately it was the public perception that policed this process. Once the stigma had been established the public would enforce it. Total genius.

Even prior to studying the case in any great detail I was of the opinion that the 'lone gunman' story did not hold water. Back then I would have argued the point with anybody but I wouldn't have been able to support my opinions with any real evidence and I would have been unable to answer the fundamental questions of, 'Why, Who and How?'. What happened on that day is quite clear. JFK was publicly assassinated by more than one assailant attacking from different directions. We can see it, we can hear it and we have overwhelming evidence to support this conclusion. If someone remained a proponent of the 'lone gunman' theory after viewing this evidence I would not know what to say to them. I will not waste time on expanding this point, if you are unaware of why it was impossible for a single person to have perpetrated this crime please stop reading and review the oceans of photographs, film and testimonies that have established this point long ago so we can move on.

To cast any real light on the truth of the assassination we have to be able to answer those other three questions of, 'Why? Who? and How?'. Let's give that a go then. Who would have benefited from the death of JFK?

Why?

Despite the Kennedy family portraying an outward appearance of being distinctly clean-cut, Joseph P Kennedy, Jack's father, had some pretty sizable skeletons in his closet. During the prohibition years, it is alleged he worked with Brooklyn mafia boss, Frank Costello, bootlegging liquor across the U.S. He was able to fund such a venture by investing profits from his insider trading activities on Wall Street. These types of trades are now illegal. Joe Kennedy certainly had nurtured a close relationship with the mafia and when JFK took the presidency it was assumed by Sam Giancana, boss of Chicago '57-'66, that this relationship would continue. It did continue but not in the way the mafia wanted. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-bootleg-politician-he-could-have-anything-he-wanted-except-the-thing-he-wanted-most-so-joe-1556722.html. https://joebrunoonthemob.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/joe-bruno-on-the-mob-joseph-p-kennedy

JFK was supposedly having an affair with Sam Giancana's girlfriend, Judith Exner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Exner Was this done for strategic purposes on either side or was this a case of Kennedy not being able to keep it in his pants? The plot thickens with allegations of Ms Exners' connection to Castro. Was she a go-between and if so, for who? Either way, somebody was manipulating the situation but my personal conclusion is that JFK was playing the mafia. I think he took advantage of his father's relationship with the mafia and played along just enough in order to U-turn at the most effective time. I believe he wanted to smash the mafia from day one. When Kennedy started to publicly state his intentions to clamp down on their power and influence, the mob felt betrayed. In doing so, JFK ensured the mafia's name would be the first on a list of his enemies.

I would like to mention an organisation that should not be added to this list, namely the Federal Reserve Bank. You may well ask why this is pertinent. It is a common misconception that Kennedy was manoeuvring to reduce the powers of the fed by issuing authority to the secretary of the treasury to create a silver backed note that would have transferred power back to government. This is simply not accurate and, in fact, JFK had a cosy relationship with the banking establishment that can be easily proved by researching what he actually said in relation to them and by looking at the actual wording of his famous executive order 11110 issued in 1961. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110 I readily admit to falling into this trap when I first started looking into the JFK story as it seemed to fit perfectly with my preconceptions regarding the 'evil banking system'. Let me be clear here. I do believe the banking system is fundamentally evil but in this instance, I think the desire to paint Kennedy as an almost holy figure has overridden many a researchers' objectivity, including mine for a brief time. This was an important lesson for me and one we can all learn from.

The president's relationship with the C.I.A had not been a good one. He had sacked Director Allan Dulles, along with Richard Bissell and General Charles Cable, for going behind his back when they had approached the mafia to perform a hit on Castro without informing him. After the 'Bay of pigs' fiasco, when the C.I.A failed in their attempts to invade Cuba, he was furious, allegedly vowing to Smash them into 1000 pieces. JFK's refusal to send air support during this action earned him some vociferous opponents so, all things considered, I think it's fair to say we can go ahead and add the C.I.A's name to that list.

Those industries that profit from the prosecution of war, collectively known as, 'The military industrial complex', were terrified as their elected president repeatedly stated his desire and intention to scale back the military, withdraw from Vietnam and to enter into a program of nuclear de-escalation with Russia. The M.I.C has a perfect formula for the generation of enormous wealth and power. It just so happens that a key ingredient to this formula is the prosecution of war. Therefore an anti-war president was really bad for business so let us pen in the entire M.I.C onto our ever-increasing list.

JFK's vice president was Lyndon B Johnson. He had a famously bad relationship with the Kennedys and was already mired in controversy as allegations of voter fraud dogged him from his run for Senate in 1948. This was the famous 'precinct 13' box incident where vote rigging had apparently helped steal it for Johnson. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html Throughout his vice presidency LBJ had manoeuvred and cajoled his way to obtain more executive power from his position than was normally available. His methodology and general manner were very different from that of Kennedy's and I think we can say that there was no love lost between them. Johnson's placement can be seen as a case of, '...keep your enemies closer.' He was there for the sake of political expediency not because of any friendship he held with JFK. Their political differences are best illustrated by LBJ's rapid reversal of Kennedys' de-escalation plan in Vietnam. Once he took office he fully committed the American people to a war of attrition that proved ineffectual militarily, costly in terms of human life but hugely profitable for the military-industrial complex.  In Aug 1963 Bobby Baker, the secretary to the majority leader of the Senate and a protégé of LBJ's, was being investigated for alleged bribery, arranging kickbacks for the vice president. http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbakerB.htm Baker resigned in Oct 1963 and the investigation was preparing to level its sights on Johnson. This would have been the final nail in LBJ's coffin. I imagine he already knew there was no way that Kennedy was going to put him on the ticket for the next election and with the threat of the investigation looming over him he may have been looking at serious jail time if found guilty. Johnson was in a corner. He was willing to play ball with the M.I.C, the C.I.A and the Fed. Yet here he was on the brink of political obsolescence or even incarceration. Something would have to be done about JFK. Luckily Johnson was associated with some very powerful people that felt exactly the same...With unmitigated certainty, I can put Lyndon B Johnson's name on the list.

Our final candidate is possibly the most powerful of them all...Israel. Kennedy was pushing for their nuclear facility in Dimona to be comprehensively inspected, something that Israel had largely avoided. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal There were growing concerns at the time that no one really knew the extent of their nuclear weapons program as they had chosen not to join the 'Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons' (NPT) and what little inspections had taken place were considered farcical due to their restrictive and controlled nature. Israel had been given plenty of prior warning about these inspections and therefore the findings were deemed to be of little value. Kennedy seemed determined to put an end to this situation and he certainly had the backing of many members of the international community to do so. However, no other country had the power to force Israel's hand in this way; the impetus had to come from the U.S. Without them on-board there was simply no chance whatsoever of bringing Israel to heel. With Kennedy out of the way, the movement for transparency would lose its momentum, putting the onus on the next administration to either pick up the torch or drop the subject entirely. History has shown us what eventually did happen and to this day Israel has the least inspected, least regulated and most secretive nuclear weapons program in the world.

This totals to a formidable collection of adversaries. If just one of them had decided to kill JFK they may have been able to pull it off but I suggest that it is likely that they were all involved, to a greater or lesser extent, in a collective attempt to rid themselves of this problematic man.

I don't believe the portrayal of JFK as a saintly figure is accurate. His legendary womanising alone could have compromised his presidency but I do believe his political/global vision was one of peace and transparency, two words that struck terror into the hearts of those poised against him. In my opinion, JFK's assassination was a coup d’état, devised and executed by a consortium of individuals that had the assets, logistical means and contacts to perform this audacious crime. They also possessed the power to cover up the truth and misdirect the public at every step of the way.

That brings us on to our next question....

Who?

We have already established who may have been pulling the strings but who was it that actually carried out the killing? This is a far more contentious issue as there are numerous different theories on this matter. Some say there were three gunmen; others claim there were up to eight. The most recent theory is that Jackie Kennedy shot her husband in the car and that Governor John B Connally was also involved somehow from within the car. The driver, William Greer, has also been implicated. Did he turn and shoot the president? We have the infamous grassy knoll with possible shooters behind the picket fence. There are suggestions that the final head shot was taken from within a storm drain that lined the road. How then are we to make sense of all these possibilities?

I approached this problem from the perspective of the killers. If I wanted to assassinate JFK in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, with the terrain and escape routes that this particular location offered, how would I go about it? The first thing that strikes me is the fact that assassination by rifle fire has to be one of the most difficult methods possible. It necessitates the shooter or shooters to be in a safe position, probably elevated, with a clear line of sight for some time before the target's e.t.a. It can be assumed that any potential vantage points that fulfilled this criterion would have been identified by the security services and monitored appropriately.