Post by mecano04 on Aug 18, 2017 22:47:19 GMT
Salzmank ,
Well I just searched my personal library and it seems my brother took some of my books when he left a few months ago. No biggie since I'll see him in a few weeks.
Still, I find it annoying because I miss that one book in which I had the Tamam Shud, the Renczi and the Pitzer (on page 2 of this thread)cases, just to name those.
Now, I don't say every info in the books I have are 100% accurate, nor can't be outdated but I don't usually buy books from dark or unknown editors. Most of my books are published (or edited, whatever) by Gründ, Könemann, Bulfinch, Taschen, Phaidon, Easton Press & Larousse. (Not boasting, just stating). I'm not saying their "batting average" is the best out there but usually they publish serious and solid stuff. I don't have the book in front of me so I can't say who is the editor. For all I know it might be published by Reader's Digest Selection, who tends to go on more popular culture/knowledge grounds at times so their stuff might not be as solid as others but I'm just assuming they might be the editors. I pretty sure it's not Larousse because I still have those about mysteries.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I grew up and went through college at a time before most sources on Internet were academically recognized as sound and solid. By the time I was in university it was more accepted but still not to the extent it is today. Part of that still make me search for scientific or government sources as well as trying to find multiple corroborating sources.
Dating back to my school days, I rarely use Wikipedia as a main nor corroborating source. I use it to get a global picture and maybe get a detail here or there but that's it. Over the years, I've seen too many discrepancies between what was written on Wikipedia, despite listing many sources, and what University, Government(s), Scientific and Industrial documents(directly from the manufacturer)said. The subjects mostly covered economy, engineering and history (but not the paranormal or unsolved things).
I use it here because, again I think it gives a global picture and some details, but I don't think it should be taken as an absolute "law".
Sorry for the wall of text but I'm getting at your questions now.
For Renczi, there might be Romanian or Hungarian documents about it, either proving or disproving it but I speak neither one of those languages. I happen to have a coworker who is Romanian (came to Canada about 20 years ago) but she just took a sabbatical year. I'm not close enough to her to have her info to contact her either.
Looking at the Wiki, it says [citation needed] a lot. It's not proving nor disproving anything but the claim it's an hoax needs a source. There is a source listed " Ross McWhirter; Norris McWhirter (1972). Guinness Book of World Records. Sterling Publishing Company. p. 288. "A claim that Vera Renczi murdered 35 persons in Rumania this century lacks authority." that tends t o say to story is not as credible as it may seem but it's not categorically disproving it either. I would have to read the part in any case.
It might be half legend/ half truth.
I'm Canadian, not French so I do not know about every or a lot of about what took place on the old continent.
I'll look into it. You might also want to look into the the Pierre Bérégovoy "suicide", from a bullet shot at 3 meters from him.
Well I just searched my personal library and it seems my brother took some of my books when he left a few months ago. No biggie since I'll see him in a few weeks.
Still, I find it annoying because I miss that one book in which I had the Tamam Shud, the Renczi and the Pitzer (on page 2 of this thread)cases, just to name those.
Now, I don't say every info in the books I have are 100% accurate, nor can't be outdated but I don't usually buy books from dark or unknown editors. Most of my books are published (or edited, whatever) by Gründ, Könemann, Bulfinch, Taschen, Phaidon, Easton Press & Larousse. (Not boasting, just stating). I'm not saying their "batting average" is the best out there but usually they publish serious and solid stuff. I don't have the book in front of me so I can't say who is the editor. For all I know it might be published by Reader's Digest Selection, who tends to go on more popular culture/knowledge grounds at times so their stuff might not be as solid as others but I'm just assuming they might be the editors. I pretty sure it's not Larousse because I still have those about mysteries.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I grew up and went through college at a time before most sources on Internet were academically recognized as sound and solid. By the time I was in university it was more accepted but still not to the extent it is today. Part of that still make me search for scientific or government sources as well as trying to find multiple corroborating sources.
Dating back to my school days, I rarely use Wikipedia as a main nor corroborating source. I use it to get a global picture and maybe get a detail here or there but that's it. Over the years, I've seen too many discrepancies between what was written on Wikipedia, despite listing many sources, and what University, Government(s), Scientific and Industrial documents(directly from the manufacturer)said. The subjects mostly covered economy, engineering and history (but not the paranormal or unsolved things).
I use it here because, again I think it gives a global picture and some details, but I don't think it should be taken as an absolute "law".
Sorry for the wall of text but I'm getting at your questions now.
For Renczi, there might be Romanian or Hungarian documents about it, either proving or disproving it but I speak neither one of those languages. I happen to have a coworker who is Romanian (came to Canada about 20 years ago) but she just took a sabbatical year. I'm not close enough to her to have her info to contact her either.
Looking at the Wiki, it says [citation needed] a lot. It's not proving nor disproving anything but the claim it's an hoax needs a source. There is a source listed " Ross McWhirter; Norris McWhirter (1972). Guinness Book of World Records. Sterling Publishing Company. p. 288. "A claim that Vera Renczi murdered 35 persons in Rumania this century lacks authority." that tends t o say to story is not as credible as it may seem but it's not categorically disproving it either. I would have to read the part in any case.
It might be half legend/ half truth.
I'm Canadian, not French so I do not know about every or a lot of about what took place on the old continent.
I'll look into it. You might also want to look into the the Pierre Bérégovoy "suicide", from a bullet shot at 3 meters from him.