@stoa-oid why would it not be possible for every supercentenarian to have impersonated someone else then?

There is a difference between freedom of speech and spouting nonsense. 

@930310

My English is not good enough to answer you. I don´t know "impersonated" etc. ... and secondly I don´t want to risk a further banning. So, sorry.

@930310 yes, identity switch is a possibility for every supercentenarian, and also for every other human. For Yvonne Calment it is an established fact. I understand that it frustrates you, so you would never look into any evidence, but you should prepare yourself to the inevitability that others would.

@nzak I have read every page on your "Madame Calment" wiki and I see no reason to believe in this conspiracy.

@930310 Calment wiki is very useful but very outdated collection of pictures and some pieces of information. Now all their biographies are untangled, and their life is an open book (already published btw). After her real interviews became public, her lie is obvious, but did you care to listen to them? Isn't it interesting for a SC fan?  Sequence of events that led to the swap is also known. If a switch in signature from type A to the very different type B at age 60, testimony of her doctor's family, her multiple slips into talking as her daughter, her lack of memory of Jeanne's early life, her clear lies, etc can't even theoretically give you any reason to believe "in this conspiracy", is there anything that theoretically can? Or in your picture of the world, impersonation is impossible? Why?

I dont want to upset the status quo. If admin dont want such a discussion here then people can search for the calmentvalidation tapatalk forum where the evidence can be discussed.

Posted by: @930310

↑

@stoa-oid why would it not be possible for every supercentenarian to have impersonated someone else then?

Zak and I reviewed validations for the oldest supercentenarians, taking a sceptical approach. For cases such as Knauss, Mortensen and Kristal where there at first appeared to be opportunities for identity switches or age exaggeration, we found new evidence that turned previously weak validation reports into much stronger cases. This contrasts with Calment where everything we look at just increasingly supports the switch. 

There were a few others such as Beard that are obviously fakes but even GRG accepts him as disputed now. Contrary to what you may think it is more often possible to look at the evidence for recent supercentenarian claims in countries with good records and determine who is genuine and who is not. 

I shall respond to your hastily assembled preconceptions about me nzak.

I read the arguments and counter arguments to the JC matter in significant detail, abecause as already stated, from a probity perspective it is healthy to freshly review “remarkable” cases such as JC.

I reviewing these I felt that at times, emotive issues  crept into the positions of all parties.

To assist you in understanding my perspective, I do have a background as an expert witness, in receiving and giving cross examination and assisting legal council in specific areas of my experience.

This includes matters such as a hierarchy of evidence, hearsay and similar matters, but I am not a qualified lawyer.

From my own perspective I strongly concur with other opinions here, that you have only raised circumstantial matters.

Were this a legal type of matter where you were prosecuting the case of JC I doubt you would even get to trial in most western world legal systems, let alone overturn a significant wall of documentary evidence.

Allow me to give you a circumstantial response to some of your circumstantial evidence.

My own signature changed quite significantly between 40 and 45 and has not since. I have no idea why. For someone 25 years older than me and also mourning the loss of a child, why could it not happen to her?

If you find more solid and documentary evidence and can demonstrate respect for this Forum then I would objectively consider future  evidence. 

The (albeit friendly) cross examination and verbal responses of an exceptionally elderly person may well, also be considered much less reliable than the thorough assembling of all available documentation.

For now I won’t comment further on this. But do not wish to be seen as someone that blindly accepts matters put in front of me.

@chrisr Her signature switched one year before the death, not after. You can see it on the sample posted on this thread above. But do you really wish to look into the evidence? 

Can you post your signatures to show how they suddenly switched from a stable type A to a stable type B, so that we can compare with the Calment signature switch? Did your switch happen at a moment when your notary retired, and another one came from another town? And you were fighting with tuberculosis which you wanted to hide? You dismiss the testimony, but it allows to reconstruct her real biography. For those who would care to listen to it, the switch becomes absolutely obvious. But it is hard and time consuming, it is easier to claim that you "already looked into the evidence". Anyway, we have done all the job already, and it is just a matter of time until the obvious truth is widely accepted. Then people would not believe that anybody thought she is genuine.

@chrisr Even if she was not caught on video switching her identity, a competent court would certainly see the obvious if it looks in the whole evidence. Bayesian inference is often used in courts and such analysis gives an astronomic ratio in favor of the switch

Posted by: @chrisr

↑

From my own perspective I strongly concur with other opinions here, that you have only raised circumstantial matters.

Were this a legal type of matter where you were prosecuting the case of JC I doubt you would even get to trial in most western world legal systems, let alone overturn a significant wall of documentary evidence.

Allow me to give you a circumstantial response to some of your circumstantial evidence.

My own signature changed quite significantly between 40 and 45 and has not since. I have no idea why. For someone 25 years older than me and also mourning the loss of a child, why could it not happen to her?

If you find more solid and documentary evidence and can demonstrate respect for this Forum then I would objectively consider future  evidence. 

The (albeit friendly) cross examination and verbal responses of an exceptionally elderly person may well, also be considered much less reliable than the thorough assembling of all available documentation.

It is a misconception that circumstantial evidence is necessarily weak while official documents are always strong. One or two items of circumstantial evidence would not be sufficient to provide a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt, but enough items of good circumstantial evidence can be. Documentary evidence on the other hand can be just self-declared by the person under suspicion. Checks are weak or non-existent. In this case it is easy to understand that Yvonne Calment and her family filed a fraudulent declaration of death in 1934. From that point on they just had to maintain the lie on all future documents. There are plenty of cases where documentary evidence of longevity has been proven to be misleading. In the case of Carol C White one mistake was copied many times. In France Marie-Philomene Flassayer used an older siblings birth record for her marriage and the error persisted until her death making her appear ten years older on her death record. Both of these cases had been accepted by GWR before being debunked.

This year INSERM published 15 hours of audio tape recordings of Mme Calment's testimony. We are the only ones who have independently checked this evidence and we were shocked by how revealing her testimony was. We have cross-checked with many historical documents to compare her testimony with reality.  Everyone should put aside any previous conclusions and assumptions until they have studied it along with the other new evidence we found.

The main problem with circumstantial evidence is that it takes a lot of time and effort to assimilate it and form a conclusion. Zak and I have been studying the evidence for a long time and we have written it up in as much detail as possible for others to follow. Obviously a single DNA test would make it much easier to form a consensus because it would be deterministic on its own and could overrule all other evidence whether documentary or testimonial, but for now that test is not on the cards.

@pgibbs I have personally researched over 3 000 supercentenarians and collected documentation and articles about them and their lives. So contrary to what you believe, I actually know what I'm doing and how age validation works.

You claim not to be interested in Jeanne Calment's DNA, yet you keep on mentioning it.

Posted by: @930310

↑

@pgibbs I have personally researched over 3 000 supercentenarians and collected documentation and articles about them and their lives. So contrary to what you believe, I actually know what I'm doing and how age validation works.

You claim not to be interested in Jeanne Calment's DNA, yet you keep on mentioning it.

I did not say that we are not interested in her DNA, I said "The accusations made against us that we want to obtain her DNA for other reasons are not true." We would like to see the DNA test carried out because it would easily convince many scientists without them having to study all the testimonial and documentary evidence.

I also have not said that you do not know how age validation works. I just argue against specific points you make. We do not accept arguments from authority over evidence.

Dear all,

After deliberation within the Admin Team (including moderators) we have decided to suspend @nzak and @pgibbs for the time being.

The main motivations were:

1. Playing the victim and showcasing manipulative, toxic behaviour.
2. Pushing their own agenda by continuously breaking forum rules. (Once again promoting their own publication, a post that has once more been removed.)
3. Showing disrespect to other members of this forum by belittling them.

Let's hope the peace and quiet can now return to this forum.

Posted by: @stoa-oid

↑

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.

Not to worry, there is no reason for a warning or a suspension based on this post - everyone is entitled to their own opinion!

And yes, over here too we believe that extreme claims require a thorough case review, which has been done time and time again in the case of Mrs Calment. However, all investigations - bar the intriguing one performed by Mr Zak and Mr Gibbs - have come to the same conclusion: Mrs Calment died at the age of 122. The "evidence" provided by the alternative research is without any context (such as the "transcript" of snippets of the interview not being in French and being very incomplete) and is thus very manipulative, yet presented as "the truth". Evidence/research debunking the claim of Mr Zak and Mr Gibbs can be found all over the Internet. 🙂 

I have noticed that one wants quiet and peace in the forum. So do I.

I don´t want to cause any troubles, but I feel very disappointed in my heart that there is no place for nzak and pgibbs here! They are polite and serious scientists. They had deserved to stay with us.

After a humiliation for 3 months they won´t come back again... It is a pitty.

Nzak and pgibbs, stay safe and sound, if you read this words as guests. Kind regards from Austria to our fraternal people Russia.

@stoa-oid I beg to differ when it comes to them being "serious scientists".

@tomi

As far as I know they do have a doctor degree. I don´t have;-).

Qualifications only give you a start in life.

Where people go from there and how they perform is up to them. 

I agree with 024Tomi in respect of his comments.

Whether they have been directed to come to this conclusion or just decided that JC’s case must’ be wrong, it’s fair to say they have found no solid evidence to back it up.

Perhaps more importantly they’ve lost all perspective on the case, just convinced JC was a fraud and blind towards all the other evidence.

@stoa-oid they are mathematicians and not gerontologists. Arguing that they are more correct because they have PhDs is like entrusting people with degrees in economics to determine your dietary needs.

Obviously I know the background of the members.

Every doctor of each discipline has seriously learned how to work academically. So there is no single doubt that pgibbs and nzak are dignified and serious scientists.

It is not forbidden to accept (gelten lassen in German) different discourses.

As a more than middle-aged person I have learnt to accept minorities and non-mainstream theories.

This is my closing word concerning this matter knowing that there will be no unity. There is no need for.

Oh wow I cannot believe nzak got banned for 6 months. I mean the first time he came on here, I could understand that he wanted to debate about Calment, and honestly he's got some good points, but to come back a second time just to promote himself is downright rude. He should have never promoted his work like that to began with. I saw his interview with the doctor's son who treated Calment and honestly it had nothing to do with Calment's age being a hoax. And now this? He's really lost a lot of credibility. 

Posted by: @aquanaut

↑

Oh wow I cannot believe nzak got banned for 6 months. I mean the first time he came on here, I could understand that he wanted to debate about Calment, and honestly he's got some good points, but to come back a second time just to promote himself is downright rude. He should have never promoted his work like that to began with. I saw his interview with the doctor's son who treated Calment and honestly it had nothing to do with Calment's age being a hoax. And now this? He's really lost a lot of credibility. 

I disagree. To lose credibility, one must have some credibility to start with. He never had it.

nzak is extremely dedicated to and persistent in his misinformation campaign, that is the only thing I give him credit for.

Posted by: @aquanaut

↑

and honestly he's got some good points

Does he? Am I missing something here?

@amck personally, I thought his points about Calment's eye color and signature change were pretty strong. That is strange how her eye color and handwriting changed suspiciously at the time of Yvonne's death. However, I am color blind so I myself cannot see proof of this eye color change, so I can't exactly verify it.

I can't remember if I wrote my theory about living to the age of 122 on this forum, but I'll say it again here. I personally do not believe that the oldest person ever recorded would "jump" from 115 (or 113 I can't remember right now) to 122. That is statistically impossible. What's more likely is that there were other people who had made it to 116-119 and possibly higher that just weren't verified. Not a lot, but some. 

Someone on here pointed out that in order to get to 122 years and 164 days, we would likely need a "pool" of 29 119-year olds, 58 118-year olds, and 116 117-year olds. That would make the math come out. Either Calment got extremely lucky and made it to 122, or there have been many people aged 117-121 never verified. I believe that in 70% of the missing people, we got an extremely lucky 122 year old, and 30% of the missing people just weren't verified. Thats why I think we should give cases like Mrs. Batuli Lamichhane and Mrs. Guadalupe Garcia a chance. I think there's more people out there that are over 118, just a handful, but they're out there.

Again I am not good at math, so I am swearing that I'm correct on any of this. I don't have any kind of science to back it up. It's just my personal opinion that there are some missing 118 year old, 119 year olds, 120 year olds, and possibly even a 121 year old. With an extremely farfetched idea that although unlikely, there might even be a missing person that was 123 or older. But I find the chances of it extremely slim. 

And I just had to say to @chrisr that was a hilarious truth you pointed out how Zak has no credibility 🤣 because he honestly does not lol. I read his manuscripts and I did not understand them. He does not make any "new" good points that weren't already on the internet, the two being like I mentioned the eye color switch and the signature. 

I'm not saying that Calment is a hoax, but I will not believe it until I see more evidence, no disrespect to Calment of course.

Edit: Would it be a good idea to move these last couple statements under the Jeanne Calment page?

@aquanaut_chalk Until you see more evidence?

With all due respect, how much more evidence would you need? She is the most comprehensively verified supercentenarian in human history.

@beaumont I personally think it's suspicious how her signature/eye color changed around the time of Yvonne's death. And how Jeanne kept mixing herself up with Yvonne. I'm not educated highly on these things but I don't think it's normal for these things to change "all of a sudden". I would like to see an explanation as to why "all of a sudden" her eye/signature changed.

She may have accidentally mixed herself up with her daughter due to her advanced age, but I've heard her cognition was tested and came up perfect. Zak says that if her cognition was perfect, she should not have mixed up her memories with that of her daughter.

No disrespect toward Calment, but I've heard things supporting and debunking her case, I am at a loss at what to think. I'm honestly confused at her case, however I will admit the first I had ever heard of Calment was when Zak came out and called her a fraud. So I went into the Calment case, automatically leaning toward her being a hoax, due to that being the first time I had learned of her.

I have not put much time into researching her case, and I'm not at all saying I'm right. Just giving my opinion.

After seeing all this nonsense Zak has pulled, including interviewing her doctor's son, and posting theories how he claims Tanaka, Randon, and Kimura are all frauds, I can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't fully trust what he says anymore because of that. Like I said earlier, he did have good points about Calment, but it seems like the more nonsense he pulls, the less I believe what he says. 

I have been in contact with Zak via YT and he has told me many reasons why Calment is a hoax and I personally don't believe any of them except the 2 I mentioned and possibly the whole daughter-identity mixup thing. I kinda don't want to talk to him anymore after he tried to promote himself on here again. 

Posted by: @aquanaut

↑

@beaumont I personally think it's suspicious how her signature/eye color changed around the time of Yvonne's death. And how Jeanne kept mixing herself up with Yvonne. I'm not educated highly on these things but I don't think it's normal for these things to change "all of a sudden". I would like to see an explanation as to why "all of a sudden" her eye/signature changed.

She may have accidentally mixed herself up with her daughter due to her advanced age, but I've heard her cognition was tested and came up perfect. Zak says that if her cognition was perfect, she should not have mixed up her memories with that of her daughter.

No disrespect toward Calment, but I've heard things supporting and debunking her case, I am at a loss at what to think. I'm honestly confused at her case, however I will admit the first I had ever heard of Calment was when Zak came out and called her a fraud. So I went into the Calment case, automatically leaning toward her being a hoax, due to that being the first time I had learned of her.

I have not put much time into researching her case, and I'm not at all saying I'm right. Just giving my opinion.

After seeing all this nonsense Zak has pulled, including interviewing her doctor's son, and posting theories how he claims Tanaka, Randon, and Kimura are all frauds, I can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't fully trust what he says anymore because of that. Like I said earlier, he did have good points about Calment, but it seems like the more nonsense he pulls, the less I believe what he says. 

I have been in contact with Zak via YT and he has told me many reasons why Calment is a hoax and I personally don't believe any of them except the 2 I mentioned and possibly the whole daughter-identity mixup thing. I kinda don't want to talk to him anymore after he tried to promote himself on here again. 

I would never criticise someone for being open minded to other possibilities of course, but sometimes the people pushing these theories have their own agenda. Certainly seems to be the case here.

You say you have not looked into proof that supports Calment? I would suggest looking here if you're interested - https://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/09.htm

They could not find a single piece of evidence to cast any doubt on her claimed age.

Hi Aquanaut_chalk.

At a very high level this extraordinary case does have an extraordinary level of proof.

In addition the vast majority of the solid legally documented evidence occurred well before anyone had any idea whatsoever, that she would live  so long. That is the strongest evidence.

To begin to offset that we would need other solid documentation of the same type - eg Jeanne Calment being admitted to a sanitarium, proof of forged death certificates etc etc. 

They attempt to offset this strong documentation with verbal mistakes made by a very elderly woman, under friendly questioning about events that had occurred many decades earlier. We will all make verbal mistakes of this type when asked about past things - even when we’re very young.

Their fabrication of information liked “very private funerals” “large money legacies” and similar, also discredit their theory and its providers and therefore from a legal perspective would act against them in any other factor where they disagree with others.

IE they confirm themselves as providers of unreliable information, in respect of their claim.

In terms of the “weight” given to certain arguments, if the full documentary evidence had a weight of 1000 kilos, the verbal responses which they rely on may have a weight of 1 kilo before you allow for the fact that the transcript has come from and unreliable provider.

in addition, for their claim to be correct so many people would have had to have told lies and covered up things that the they knew. For lawyers, funeral directors and others the consequences of being caught could have been prison sentences. So what are the chance so many people would tell lies?

And finally I come back to the first point I made to the terrible  twins then they turned up, being that other witnesses came forth (many from her own home town) with more details to support her, when the matter was being looked at once more. 

The validation notes above have always made very compelling reading and the review even made the case slightly stronger. The review was good for the case.

In reply to ChrisR

> At a very high level this extraordinary case does have an extraordinary level of proof.

There is certainly a lot of documentation but all the available evidence is consistent with the switch scenario that Zak identified*. Furthermore there is a great deal of evidence that is unlikely if the switch scenario were false. There are certainly many documents that include Jeanne. The ones from before 1933 are all genuine records of Jeanne Calment's life. The death certificate for Yvonne is a fraud because it was Jeanne who had died. All later documents are incorrect but each one follows from those before it. It therefore does not matter how many documents are produced. There is only one that needs to be considered when checking her authenticity. For other evidence it is necessary to look for other clues such as the change of signature.

(* several others had considered the same possibility before independently, but it was only with recent improved access to documents that a convincing case could be made)

> In addition the vast majority of the solid legally documented evidence occurred well before anyone had any idea whatsoever, that she would live so long. That is the strongest evidence.

This is not important. Everybody leaves a trail of documents. Whatever age she was going to live to the documentation would have been the same.

> To begin to offset that we would need other solid documentation of the same type - eg Jeanne Calment being admitted to a sanitarium, proof of forged death certificates etc etc. 

The paperwork from the sanatorium is not available. It was probably destroyed for privacy reasons. There is nevertheless evidence that Jeanne had tuberculosis and was treated in Leysin in 1931 rather than Yvonne. Yvonne had been treated and recovered in 1928. This evidence includes the testimony of the family of Dr Gilbert, the photo of Yvonne and Jeanne together in Leysin with Jeanne being underweight, and medical data for Mme Calment that would be consistent with them both having had tuberculosis.

We can not expect direct proof that the death certificate was forged. It was signed and registered in the same way as any death certificate would be. The only sense in that it was forged is that it was really Jeanne who died not Yvonne. The evidence that this must have happened is everything else. I don't think it is reasonable to demand particular items of evidence that can't exist while ignoring all the evidence that does exist.

> They attempt to offset this strong documentation with verbal mistakes made by a very elderly woman, under friendly questioning about events that had occurred many decades earlier. We will all make verbal mistakes of this type when asked about past things - even when we’re very young.

In Zak's original paper he cited a few irregularities in her testimony based on what was available in the validators' books. When we did the Bayesian analysis we put the testimonial evidence aside because it was second hand information and the possibility of her making simple mistakes made it less convincing. There was still enough evidence without that testimony to favour the switch scenario.

In January 2022 INSERM released 15 hours of the original recordings from the interviews. We analysed them and were shocked at how clear it became that she was not just making random errors of memory. There are too many details to elaborate here, but she was always making mistakes in a way that betrayed her identity as Yvonne rather than Jeanne. The recordings are available online so our conclusions can be checked by anyone who understands French. This testimony now substantially increases the evidence in favour of the switch.

> Their fabrication of information liked “very private funerals” “large money legacies” and similar, also discredit their theory and its providers and therefore from a legal perspective would act against them in any other factor where they disagree with others. IE they confirm themselves as providers of unreliable information, in respect of their claim.

Nothing has been fabricated. Everything we claim can be independently checked. We have not said that the funeral was very private. In Zak's first paper he said "It was a very public event" The identity switch had taken place 12 to 24 months before the funeral. Nothing needed to be hidden at that time. 

Although the financial motive remains, it was never likely to be strong enough on its own to justify what they did. We now understand a different motive. They were hiding the illness of Jeanne and saying that it was Yvonne who had pleurisy. To cover they Yvonne forged some signatures. Yvonne's husband needed to have his army leave extended. he had originally taken leave five years earlier when his wife Yvonne was ill. To extend his leave they needed to say that Yvonne was ill again. They had built a web of lies over a number of years before Jeanne died unexpectedly. If they confessed at that point they would be in serious trouble because of those lies. They had to continue the masquerade to avoid a scandal. This is a much stronger motive. It fits perfectly with the records.

> In terms of the “weight” given to certain arguments, if the full documentary evidence had a weight of 1000 kilos, the verbal responses which they rely on may have a weight of 1 kilo before you allow for the fact that the transcript has come from and unreliable provider.

As I said previously, we were not relying on the testimonial evidence at all. When the recordings was published we discovered that it reinforced the switch even more. If anybody thinks our transcripts or translations are wrong they can easily be checked, so this is not an argument against us.

> in addition, for their claim to be correct so many people would have had to have told lies and covered up things that the they knew. For lawyers, funeral directors and others the consequences of being caught could have been prison sentences. So what are the chance so many people would tell lies?

There were no lying lawyers, funeral directors, doctors or priests. All had been taken in by the preceding identity switch and reported what they believed. This is how a lie takes hold. At the beginning only Jeanne, Yvonne, Joseph, Fernand and perhaps a few other close relatives knew. Other people would believe it because they all acted like it was true. The more people believe it, the easier it becomes to convince even more people. The validators said that they were convinced because so many other people already believed her. They failed to take into account that everyone else was thinking the same way except those few people who were originally in on the secret, and most of them had since died.

> And finally I come back to the first point I made to the terrible  twins then they turned up, being that other witnesses came forth (many from her own home town) with more details to support her, when the matter was being looked at once more. 

There are no witnesses left than can verify her story. The oldest now is Robert Billot but he was too young to identify Jeanne or Yvonne before the funeral. He did say that a photo of Jeanne from shortly before is definitely not the woman he knew as a child. This can only confirm the switch, not refute it. There were actually very few close family members left. Those who had known her had accepted the lie. They had no reason not to believe it, but we do.

> The validation notes above have always made very compelling reading and the review even made the case slightly stronger. The review was good for the case.

I strongly disagree. All that has been said in her favour is easily debunked. Most of our opposition spend more time trying to discredit our motives than looking at the evidence we have collected. There is no one item of evidence that betrays her, but the combination of all the evidence weighs very heavily. If I throw two dice and get a double six, anyone can claim I was just lucky. If I keep doing it then at some point they have to accept that the dice are loaded. Calment's supporters can say that she just decided on a whim to refresh her signature at age 58, that she kept making mistakes in her interviews that just happened to make her sound like Yvonne, that she lied about her meeting with Van Gogh to please journalists, that she was just very lucky to live three years longer than anyone would for at least the next thirty years, etc, there is much more. Any one of these things on their own can be dismissed as chance, but put them all together and there is a compelling case for an identity switch.