[Admin: content deleted, in violation of forum rules.]

As the Admin of this forum we'd like to state that we fully support GWR, the GRG, and all other organisations that have been involved in the validation of Jeanne Calment's age - which has undoubtedly and unequivocally turned out to be true.

In fact, not a single piece of convincing evidence has been presented to cast doubt on this claim, other than dubious claims that have so far easily been refuted - such as the "research" alluded to by new member @pgibbs above.

Actually, as his main incentive here seems to be to promote the publication of his latest book, which is in violation of forum rule number #4 (see here),

4. This forum is first and foremost a fan forum for people interested in supercentenarians. It is not the place to sell one’s products or ideas. Therefore, advertising, spam, and/or self-promotion are not allowed on this forum.

we are therefore voiding pgibbs' first post and handing him a first warning for that.

Then, his second post seems to have been made as a reference to something posted not even on this particular forum, but is seemingly in response to posts made elsewhere. We suggest that pgibbs continues his arguments over there instead of unnecessarily using this forum as a platform to continue such discussions. (Hint: as @pgibbs has been banned there, then that should tell him something about how much he's desired over there.) In any case, using this forum as a platform to incite reactions is in violation of forum rule number 2 (see here) :

2. This is an international forum with members from all around the world. These members all have different mother tongues, religions, genders, sexual preferences, and customs and traditions. Therefore please show respect towards other members and treat them the way you wish to be treated. Discrimination on the basis of gender, race (also known as racism), sexual preference, or ableism is not allowed on this forum and will lead to a ban. In fact, all types of offensive and/or provocative posts will not be tolerated.

We are therefore also voiding pgibbs' second post, and handing him a second warning for that.

A third warning would equate a lengthy suspension. We suggests he takes the hint.

@admin, you don't need to go to so much trouble on my account. I only came here to answer a query about Calment evidence (with a couple of other posts required to respond to some positive PMs). I wont be posting again. if you prefer to have the question asked but not answered it is no problem for me. There are plenty of other places where people will find the information. I am sure the forum members do not live permanently inside your protective bubble. As for being banned on the 110 club, I sense that I am not alone here on that score.  

@pgibbs the whole "Mme Calment" dispute appears to have the ultimate goal of obtaining her DNA. The arguments mainly come down to weak photographic evidence, a minor change in a signature, a 110+-year-old not giving perfectly lucid information as well as hearsay.

If Jeanne was indeed the person treated for TB there should be a record of admission, which appears not to have been found. Perhaps finding some actual evidence of this alleged "switch" would be beneficial to your cause?

As things stand there is no concrete proof supporting your theory and instead an overwhelming amount supporting Jeanne Calment being 122 years old at the time of her death.

If anything, this already incredibly strong claim was strengthened further,  through the new cross examination some circa 20 years later.

From a probity process the work was a positive initiative.

But the results should be accepted and respected that 122-164 is the ultimate human longevity achievement known to date. 

The doubters should accept that and  move on.

@930310 It is our opinion that the evidence is now sufficiently strong to draw a conclusion even without the DNA test, but if others are not convinced we advocate for a DNA test carried out under conditions controlled by neutral third parties. The goal would be to determine her authenticity without violating her privacy or making the DNA available for other studies. If other researchers want to study DNA for "longevity genes" then there are living supercentenarians that can give consent in the knowledge of what modern sequencing methods can do. In fact there are projects of this type in progress. The accusations made against us that we want to obtain her DNA for other reasons are not true.

We no longer rely on photographic evidence because it turns out to be often easy to line up pictures of mothers and their daughters with similar pose and expressions at widely different ages in such a way that it makes them look like the same person. 

You say that Mme Calment was not lucid in her old age, but this contradicts statements made by the validators based on their interviews and cognitive tests. The recordings are published and you can even listen to her doing mental calculations correctly. Her memory of past events was also very good. As observed by Garoyan in his medical thesis on Mme Calment, she appeared to have gaps only for her youth and the period when they were ill. 

On the subject of admission records, if there were records and they were not included in them you would have a point. In fact records have not been preserved which is why there are none for either Yvonne or Jeanne. We know from testimony that Yvonne had tuberculosis first and was treated at a sanatorium in the Savoie region of France but she had recovered by 1929. Jeanne was the one being treated in Leysin in 1931. We have much evidence for this and all the documentary evidence is consistent with the fact that she lied about her identity from 1934 onwards.  

@chrisr, The evidence for her authenticity has not strengthened. Zak found new signatures from 1931 to 1933 that show a sudden and clear change in style. She had important financial and legal documents to sign and would not have made the change through choice. They were lucky that this switch coincided with a change in notary that made it possible to get away with. The claim that Jeanne's inheritance had been placed in a family trust is not true. Jeanne would still have had tax to pay if she died, but we identified legal pressures that were a stronger motive for the switch.

Have you listened to any of the 15 hours of audio recordings published by INSERM this year? Zak and I have now published 100s of pages of analysis of the evidence. We welcome any debate on the new findings. Her outlier status draws attention to her case but it is the factual evidence in the documents and testimony that prove the identity switch. We take a sceptical approach to all validations but we have accepted the longevity of Knauss and others because we found crucial evidence in their favour missed by the official reports. Claims that we deny recent validations are not true, but from an academic point of view it is important to reserve final judgment until a report on the evidence of each case has been published and reviewed. I am sure other supercentenarians will pass the 120 year mark in the future as the number of centenarians increases. I look forward to celebrating the genuine cases.

You say that you would like us "doubters" to "move on", but science needs to be self-correcting. Some people in these forums are just fans and dont concern themselves with the scientific implications, but others do. Science is not decided by "respect" or authority. No consensus from the wider scientific community has yet emerged. If findings are not open to scrutiny then the scientific method will fail and misinformation will prevail over evidence.

Obviously this post might be deleted as "provocative" because it challenges the view held by the moderators, so this could be my goodbye post to the forum, but if further points are raised and I am allowed to answer them, I am happy to do so.

@pgibbs I did not say that Jeanne Calment wasn't lucid. The details that she got "wrong" were very minor and do not differ from the ones we make ourselves. If you asked me the name of my 4th grade English teacher I would probably get it wrong.

Going by a very minor change in her signature is not the "smoking gun" argument that you believe it is. Signatures and handwriting change over time.

@930310 In 1933 she was 58 years old. She frequently signed her name on financial and legal documents in a country obsessed with bureaucracy. Her signature had not changed in at least the previous 8 years. Then within the space of a year it changes in multiple ways, and then settles down to a form that is stable for the next 50 years of her life. This cannot be discounted as a natural and gradual evolution of her signature over time. Of course the signature is not the only evidence.

In her testimony Mme Calment frequently got details wrong, but often in a way that would be right for Yvonne, such as calling Jeanne's husband her father on multiple occasions, or saying she was walked to school by the servant Marthe Fousson who we know from the census was younger than Jeanne.

The point about her naming her school teachers is that the validators claimed she named several of them correctly and it was strong evidence for authenticity. Actually she named one almost right and added several other names that do not match any of her teachers (they are listed in newspapers and trade directories). The one she got right was the subject of a romantic scandal and was also reputed for doing his class experiments wrong in a way that would lead to amusing stories. It would be easy for Yvonne to be aware of him. 

Posted by: @pgibbs

↑

Obviously this post might be deleted as "provocative" because it challenges the view held by the moderators, so this could be my goodbye post to the forum, but if further points are raised and I am allowed to answer them, I am happy to do so. 

It seems you might not completely have understood the reason for your second warning. The second warning has nothing to do with the differing interpretation you hold with regard to the validation of Mrs Calment's age - everyone is entitled to their own opinion - but all with the fact that you were trying to continue an argument started elsewhere - on a different forum, mind you - here. What we care about is adhering to the rules of this forum, and we feel everyone should respest the integrity of them. Hence, a second warning.

Having said that, though, we are slightly disappointed with the rebukes you have made so far in this thread. We are saddened to see you resorting to arguments such as this forum being a "protective bubble" - anything but! - on your first day here, meaning, without even knowing anyone here. Then, in one of your following posts you are claiming @930310 has said that "Mrs Calment was not lucid in her old age" whereas your knowledge of English is fine, and you know fully well that you are deliberately misquoting @930310's words here. Disappointing for someone who claims to be a researcher to be making their "point" in such a way.

Then, to quote you,

I wont be posting again[,]

you seem to be saying an awful lot for someone who wasn't posting again. Akin to the arguments you have used to cast doubt on Mrs Calment's age, here too you end up not being very consistent in your reasoning.

So, once more, even though we fully respect that others might have a different interpretation, as the Global Supercentenarian Forum we would like to reiterate that we fully support and commend the age validation organisations - GWR, the GRG, and the French research team in particular - that have been involved in Mrs Calment's age validation and that have proven her age to be true beyond reasonable - or, actually, any - doubt. So far, none of the alternative theories that have been presented have offered any solid evidence to suggest otherwise.

@930310 here is just one page of "the very minor details she got wrong", do you often make such mistakes, speaking about yourself as if you were your own daughter? And she did it all the time. We show this very clearly while analyzing all of the 15 hours of her recorded talks with Dr. Lebre. That was completely misrepresented by her validators, whose validation the admin of this forum apparently considers infalliable, I quote him "French research team in particular - that have been involved in Mrs Calment's age validation and that have proven her age to be true beyond reasonable - or, actually, any - doubt. " Well, we have already proved beyond any doubt that their validation was fake. And everybody can check it. The fraud will be exposed, regardless of the wishes of any fan club. 

@admin I also support and commend the GRG and GWR for their work. The French team of researchers who validated Jeanne Calment were not part of those groups. The GRG and GWR have accepted the conclusions of the validators but the GRG were not directly involved in the validation effort. GWR awarded her records starting in about 1986 before the scientific validation took place, but their standards were not very high at that time and several longevity records from that era have been withdrawn. The number of recent mistakes is much lower, partly due to improved records, but also due to the good work of the GRG. This does not put the GRG above scrutiny especially regarding earlier validations that they were not originally involved in but have since accepted. Indeed our work in revalidation has always been intended to help their efforts and we have done so by adding supporting evidence for other longevity cases. Have a nice day.

This forum appears to be very liberal (or the admins are just not very attentive?). A post with some evidence against Calment validation was not deleted for 24 hours already, and the author not banned yet. 

@nzak But do you have any proof that you are really the same person as Nikolai Zak of Russia...? Just in case, it might be better to indicate that there is no possibility of you are being impersonation.

@record_116 no, I just have a proof that Yvonne Calment impersonated her mother since 1933.

This Forum may possibly be considered liberal, but more importantly it runs on virtues like friendship, respect for others, tolerance and equality.

Your words are becoming increasingly inappropriate in this regard despite being “brand new” members. 

You two have come here “marketing” your own views which it’s evident that many here do not accept. These have been raised and considered a long time ago.

It appears to have been a contrived effort with one kicking the process off and the other coming in as reinforcements.

You raise supposed inconsistencies - including the performance of admins and similar, behaviour that I’d expect on other Forums. We don’t buy into that sort of rubbish here.

Now you have had your say and taken the team here, down paths many of us reviewed ages ago and have have moved on from.

Perhaps you may now respectfully consider moving on yourselves, and leaving us in peace. 

@chrisr I see that for you the authenticity of a supercentenarian is a matter of faith and not a rational judgement, and you are not at all interested in evidence and truth. If this view is shared by the administration of your forum, perhaps it should be declared explicitly, so that those who are interested in truth wouldn't waste their time with you.

@chrisr it was not us who "kicked off" the discussion above Calment's authenticity and evidence. I responded to provocative claims including your own accusations of "numerous conspiracy theories" and language such as "absurd claims" from others, by simply and politely pointing to our latest writeup of the evidence. There was a query about proof so I pointed to where it can be found. Zak and I have also made more specific point about the evidence when prompted.  There was nothing disrespectful or unfriendly in my comments unless you regard a different opinion as such, yet for all this I was accused of self-promotion and provocation. I have since been limiting my comments to this thread created by the admin called "pgibbs' statements" and will be happy to "move on" when it ends.

Posted by: @nzak

↑

Well, we have already proved beyond any doubt that their validation was fake.

We beg to differ (and I am quite sure most people on this forum with us) - but once more, different points of view (even though any evidence is lacking) can be possible.

Posted by: @pgibbs

↑

The French team of researchers who validated Jeanne Calment were not part of [the GRG and GWR]. The GRG and GWR have accepted the conclusions of the validators but the GRG were not directly involved in the validation effort.

Yet the GRG, especially, specifically identifies its correspondents - including those that worked on the Calment case - on its own website. Surely, they (i.e. the GRG) have seen the documentation. In addition, Calment's claim to 122 years has also been validated by many other experts in the field (including, among others, the IDL and Louis Epstein), as well as some newer, recent organisations (such as the ESO). You are not going to convince us that all of these organisations have blindly accepted Calment's validation in good faith. In other words, all those organisations have INDEPENDENTLY verified and validated Jeanne Calment's age.

Posted by: @nzak

↑

This forum appears to be very liberal (or the admins are just not very attentive?). A post with some evidence against Calment validation was not deleted for 24 hours already, and the author not banned yet. 

Once more, we accept alternative perspectives/points of view. We don't accept advertising one's own work and/or continuing discussions started elsewhere on the Internet. And we have yet to identify any post that contains "evidence against [the] Calment validation."

Posted by: @nzak

↑

@chrisr I see that for you the authenticity of a supercentenarian is a matter of faith and not a rational judgement, and you are not at all interested in evidence and truth. If this view is shared by the administration of your forum, perhaps it should be declared explicitly, so that those who are interested in truth wouldn't waste their time with you.

Consider this a first warning for violating forum rule number #2 (see here). No need for any attacks on other forum members. An apology from you to @ChrisR is appreciated.

Posted by: @pgibbs

↑

@chrisr it was not us who "kicked off" the discussion above Calment's authenticity and evidence. 

Allow me to remind you that this entire thread was started by you (even though the first post is no longer legible). We are disappointed to see that you have ironically misidentified this / that you seem to have a very selective memory.

Posted by: @chrisr

↑

This Forum may possibly be considered liberal, but more importantly it runs on virtues like friendship, respect for others, tolerance and equality.

Your words are becoming increasingly inappropriate in this regard despite being “brand new” members. 

You two have come here “marketing” your own views which it’s evident that many here do not accept. These have been raised and considered a long time ago.

It appears to have been a contrived effort with one kicking the process off and the other coming in as reinforcements.

You raise supposed inconsistencies - including the performance of admins and similar, behaviour that I’d expect on other Forums. We don’t buy into that sort of rubbish here.

Now you have had your say and taken the team here, down paths many of us reviewed ages ago and have have moved on from.

Perhaps you may now respectfully consider moving on yourselves, and leaving us in peace. 

 

As the Admin team we fully support the content of this post. Thank you, @ChrisR. The Global Supercentenarian Forum was created in response to the increasingly hostile, unsafe, and unpredictable atmosphere present in another forum about supercentenarians. So far, we can proudly say that this forum - GSCF - has been a safe haven for most of us, and we'd like to remain that safe space.

Although there is nothing wrong with advocating a different point of view, the manner in which @pgibbs and @nzak have done this is not only provocative, but also disrespectful, deceitful, and undermining at times. It would be nice to see a change in behaviour - if not, time will tell whether suspensions are necessary.

Posted by: @admin

↑

Posted by: @pgibbs

↑

@chrisr it was not us who "kicked off" the discussion above Calment's authenticity and evidence. 

 

Allow me to remind you that this entire thread was started by you (even though the first post is no longer legible). We are disappointed to see that you have ironically misidentified this / that you seem to have a very selective memory.

 

I posted in the thread "Jeanne Calment (FRA, 1875-1997)" that had five posts before mine. Admin created this thread and moved my posts here before deleting the contents. Why would I start a thread called "pgibbs' statements"?

Posted by: @admin

↑

As the Admin team we fully support the content of this post. Thank you, @ChrisR. The Global Supercentenarian Forum was created in response to the increasingly hostile, unsafe, and unpredictable atmosphere present in another forum about supercentenarians. So far, we can proudly say that this forum - GSCF - has been a safe haven for most of us, and we'd like to remain that safe space.

Although there is nothing wrong with advocating a different point of view, the manner in which @pgibbs and @nzak have done this is not only provocative, but also disrespectful, deceitful, and undermining at times. It would be nice to see a change in behaviour - if not, time will tell whether suspensions are necessary.

I disagree. We have just responded politely to comments that used provocative language. We were asked if we had proof of our claims and we responded by citing our work. If this is self promotion how else could we have responded? 

@admin I don't see much difference with 110 club here, judging by your posts. Just like people there, you don't even try to look into relevant evidence and discuss it. You prefer to focus on bad manners of those who tell you smth you don't like to even think about. There Robert Young spreads his idiotic lies after banning all of his opponents. Here you claim that I was "deceitful" in my posts. This is obviously not true, and anybody can see it. So, I suppose you are going to delete them soon, then ban me and then post somewhere in a topic about Jeanne Calment that I was deceitful and spread false information. After doing that honorable job, you will probably continue to believe that your forum is a much better place than 110club, but suddenly part of your banned members will create another intergalactic supercentenarian forum, and the history will repeat.

PS just noticed that you want me to apologize. Just like the 110club admins before permanently banning me 4 years ago. I am already looking forward to seeing what will happen 4 years later on the intergalactic forum. 

@admin "And we have yet to identify any post that contains "evidence against [the] Calment validation." - You have deleted pgibb's posts with the reference to the whole evidence on 1000 pages (complete biographies of Calments, review of their validation, 15 hours of her interviews on tapes, legal documents, testimonies, everything). Now you say you are searching for posts with any evidence. You can still find them in this thread. It became too long, so I share with you this picture again, to provide an example. Another post shows that her signature suddenly switched (once and forever) in 1933 just when the notary changed. And another that family of her doctor in Leysin confirmed that Jeanne was treated there. But you probably don't consider these examples as evidence because everything that contradicts her authenticity is not evidence by definition, right? Only DNA tests are, but this is the goal of our conspiracy - to get her precious DNA. Correct?

@admin "In other words, all those organisations have INDEPENDENTLY verified and validated Jeanne Calment's age." -  They just accepted the validation by the French team. But even without that validation, they would certainly accept her because there is proof of birth, proof of death, etc. However, the identity switch is what had happened, and anybody can check that the evidence for that is more than conclusive. Therefore, your argument from authority appears to be invalid. These organizations should improve their methodology.

I don´t want to get involved between the different parties here. I will stay neutral, but why should it be not possible to discuss the age of J. Calment?

Is it a sacrilege to reflect about this really unbelievable lifespan of a person and find his own thoughts and theories?

I don´t think so. I am grateful that there are members who cherish a real scientific discourse.

My personal opinion is that Calment could have reached 122 years, but it is not cast in stone only because some „schools“ of scientists came to this conclusion.

A switch of identities is not totally impossible as long there is not an undisputed dna sample of Calment.

Hopefully I am allowed to post this in the forum. In the new forum. A forum upholding freedom of speech.