+0

"A number of his [Jerome Corsi's] broadcasts are available online. In one of them he claims somewhat incoherently that ‘in both my books on Kennedy – because who really killed Kennedy? – and “Hunting Hitler” – because I’m developing themes and going back and looking at disinformation – the murder of Kennedy and the escape of Hitler. And the events tie together. The same names show up – the Dulles, the CIA , the OSS and the Bushes.’" (Richard J. Evans, The Hitler Conspiracies-The Third Reich and the Paranoid Imagination)


I don't understand what Corsi were trying to say in the emphasized part, can you help me?

+1

. . . in both my books on Kennedy ("Because who really killed Kennedy?" and “Hunting Hitler”) I develop themes and also go back and look at disinformation concerning the murder of Kennedy and the escape of Hitler.

Here's my guess.

Clive

Comments  

I agree with the writer. Corsi's words as quoted here are indeed incoherent.

Clive

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

Yes, I agree too. But I also have to translate these incoherent words.

 Clive's reply was promoted to an answer.

Thanks a lot, clive, you've been really helpful.

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
alibey1917

"A number of his [Jerome Corsi's] broadcasts are available online. In one of them he claims somewhat incoherently that ‘in both my books on Kennedy – because who really killed Kennedy? – and “Hunting Hitler” – because I’m developing themes and going back and looking at disinformation – the murder of Kennedy and the escape of Hitler. And the events tie together. The same names show up – the Dulles, the CIA , the OSS and the Bushes.’" (Richard J. Evans, The Hitler Conspiracies-The Third Reich and the Paranoid Imagination)


I don't understand what Corsi were trying to say in the emphasized part, can you help me?

We can't see the first part of his sentence. It is "Well, I've been arguing in both my books …." It still might be incoherent, but it could be that it parses now. He has been arguing (the comparatively rare transitive "argue") two theories, the murder of Kennedy and the escape of Hitler. He has been arguing them in three books, his two on Kennedy and one called Hunting Hitler. He argued the murder of Kennedy because to his mind we don't know who really killed Kennedy, and he argued the escape of Hitler because he is developing themes and looking at the history of disinformation. That last bit doesn't make much sense, but I'm surprised any of it makes any sense at all.

Thank you, friend, that will certainly help.