Recently I been reading the case of Mr. Maftei Pop (1804-1952) from Romania and I think his case is worth looking into. He was not 147 when he died, as he claimed but I do believe he may have been a supercentenarian. A source does claim he was around age 40 in 1880 meaning a birth year of 1840? Could he have been 111 or 112 at the time of his death? Romania claims to have church register documents of his birth. If someone could dig out these documents or sources, we may be able to gain a more accurate age of how old he was. I also think the case of Mrs. Batuli Lamichhane (1903-Living) should again be brought to light, to either prove or disprove Mrs. Lamichhane's case. Her family claimed that she was indeed validated by Guinness World Record and was in the final stages to be listed in the 2023 World Records Books as the oldest living person. I don't know if this is a reliable source but I do believe it should be investigated. Mrs. Lamichhane's family claims to have a census record of her being 30 years, 10 months old in January 1934, which would mean her claimed birthdate of March 1903 is correct. Again I don't know how reliable these sources are but I do feel they have enough credibility to not be ruled out yet. I would investigate further and post more information but I would have no clue where to start. Any help researching these two cases would be helpful. I believe these cases are valuable 

You can classify disputed cases in various ways. Those that are not yet validated or have already been devalidated are of less concern.

Cases that are currently listed as validated but are disputed are Johnson Parks, Nabi Tajima and Jeanne Calment. There are others where the validation is not sufficiently secure, but they could be valid. There are also many where insufficient information has been made public for them to be independently checked.

EDIT by Admin: second warning received for spreading false information. Jeanne Calment is NOT disputed.

Can you get off the disputed Jeanne Calment topic please. 

No one else supports your efforts in this regard and you’ve done that topic to death.

@pgibbs: That's a second warning for spreading false information. I've edited your post. Should I note the post will be edited, that's a third warning = six-month suspension.

Posted by: @admin

↑

@pgibbs: That's a second warning for spreading false information. I've edited your post. Should I note the post will be edited, that's a third warning = six-month suspension.

Where was the first warning? I didn't see it

@pgibbs See here: you were still at one warning for having recently served a suspension - which would have been lifted pending good behaviour.

Posted by: @chrisr

↑

Can you get off the disputed Jeanne Calment topic please. 

No one else supports your efforts in this regard and you’ve done that topic to death.

You are incorrect. Some people did support it. You cannot presume to speak for everyone on the forum. The admin's attitude to this subject clearly has a chilling effect that makes any supporters unwilling to speak up.

I don’t intend to speak for everyone.

But you have no concrete evidence, to break 122.4 years of documentation. Just hearsay, and unprovable opinions.

Now let’s not converse any further.

Posted by: @chrisr

↑

I don’t intend to speak for everyone.

But you have no concrete evidence, to break 122.4 years of documentation. Just hearsay, and unprovable opinions.

Now let’s not converse any further.

If you dont want to discuss it you should not make statements that I need to respond to.

There is plenty of concrete evidence for the identity switch hypothesis. For example her inexplicable change of signature in 1931 and the multiple inconsistencies in her late life testimony.

Also if you dont intend to speak for everyone it is better not to lead with "No one else supports ..."

@pgibbs we are willing to discuss this if any actual evidence could be put forth. What you have presented can be attributed to people's handwriting changing over time, people not looking perfect in every photograph and cognitive decline due to the natural aging process.

Posted by: @930310

↑

@pgibbs we are willing to discuss this if any actual evidence could be put forth. What you have presented can be attributed to people's handwriting changing over time, people not looking perfect in every photograph and cognitive decline due to the natural aging process.

I disagree with that assessment. When the switch hypothesis was originally proposed there was a gap of several years over which the signature might have evolved. Than Zak tracked down more documents with signatures from archives that were not scanned online. Her signature evolved early on around 1900 but we now have a sequence of signatures from 1924 to 1932 showing a very consistent style. Then suddenly in 1933 the signature changed in significant ways and lacked consistency until later. The change was too fast to be natural evolution and it is inexplicable that someone would chose to change their signature with on important financial and legal documents that she signed. Yvonne would only have access to older signatures such as on an outdated passport, paintings on the wall and her parents marriage contract. At those earlier times the signature had evolved before settling down so these old samples made it difficult for Yvonne to re[produce the signature accurately.

The inconsistencies in her testimony cannot be explained by cognitive decline. Her cognitive abilities were tested and shown to be very good. Papers and medical reports were published on this subject. Some of the inconsistencies such as in her account of meeting Van Gogh go back over ten years before she died. Her errors always made her speak in ways that Yvonne would have instead of Jeanne. They cannot be explained by the natural aging process.

We dont rely on photographs because it is clear that Jeanne and Yvonne had a strong resemblance and cannot be distinguished over long gaps in time. Comparisons of individual photos can therefore easily seem to support that she was Jeanne or Yvonne. Actually there are still new photos being found even now so perhaps something useful will eventually turn up. 

I understand that people like to rely on official records when validating supercentenarians, and this is often the best approach, but you also know that such documents are not always completely reliable because they always depend on what the family reports. Other evidence is also "actual evidence". Could you be more specific about what kind of evidence you are looking for?

Posted by: @pgibbs

↑

Posted by: @930310

↑

@pgibbs we are willing to discuss this if any actual evidence could be put forth. What you have presented can be attributed to people's handwriting changing over time, people not looking perfect in every photograph and cognitive decline due to the natural aging process.

I disagree with that assessment. When the switch hypothesis was originally proposed there was a gap of several years over which the signature might have evolved. Than Zak tracked down more documents with signatures from archives that were not scanned online. Her signature evolved early on around 1900 but we now have a sequence of signatures from 1924 to 1932 showing a very consistent style. Then suddenly in 1933 the signature changed in significant ways and lacked consistency until later. The change was too fast to be natural evolution and it is inexplicable that someone would chose to change their signature with on important financial and legal documents that she signed. Yvonne would only have access to older signatures such as on an outdated passport, paintings on the wall and her parents marriage contract. At those earlier times the signature had evolved before settling down so these old samples made it difficult for Yvonne to re[produce the signature accurately.

The inconsistencies in her testimony cannot be explained by cognitive decline. Her cognitive abilities were tested and shown to be very good. Papers and medical reports were published on this subject. Some of the inconsistencies such as in her account of meeting Van Gogh go back over ten years before she died. Her errors always made her speak in ways that Yvonne would have instead of Jeanne. They cannot be explained by the natural aging process.

We dont rely on photographs because it is clear that Jeanne and Yvonne had a strong resemblance and cannot be distinguished over long gaps in time. Comparisons of individual photos can therefore easily seem to support that she was Jeanne or Yvonne. Actually there are still new photos being found even now so perhaps something useful will eventually turn up. 

I understand that people like to rely on official records when validating supercentenarians, and this is often the best approach, but you also know that such documents are not always completely reliable because they always depend on what the family reports. Other evidence is also "actual evidence". Could you be more specific about what kind of evidence you are looking for?

 

I'm sorry but this topic is just headache inducingly dull.

All this stuff about signatures feels very 'shadows at the moon landing'.

If we pick and pick and scrape at almost anything, we could always get a group of people who would begin to doubt even the most verified of facts, as has been shown in the last decade in particular.

It honestly isn't anything against you, I just feel the whole discussion is just pointless.

Posted by: @beaumont

↑

 

I'm sorry but this topic is just headache inducingly dull.

All this stuff about signatures feels very 'shadows at the moon landing'.

If we pick and pick and scrape at almost anything, we could always get a group of people who would begin to doubt even the most verified of facts, as has been shown in the last decade in particular.

It honestly isn't anything against you, I just feel the whole discussion is just pointless.

 

Many people find Jeanne Calment's case interesting. It is also important. Her name appears in over 3000 scientific papers and her longevity claim influences longevity modelling which has real life applications. If you personally find it dull that's fine. You should not find it too hard to skip over.  In this thread we see other people saying they dont want to discuss it further, but then they offer their opinion anyway. 

Posted by: @admin

↑

@pgibbs: That's a second warning for spreading false information. I've edited your post. Should I note the post will be edited, that's a third warning = six-month suspension.

So what is an acceptable condition for a claim to be disputed? Johnson Parks is not marked as disputed in any of the lists as far as I know and there are probably fewer people who dispute his case than Calment, yet you dont seem to object to his name being mentioned as disputed.

If you dont want Calment's case to be discussed you can declare that as an admin policy and we will know to abide by it, but if you want to allow open discussion on all supercentenarian subjects then I dont understand why pointing out that Calment is disputed is a violation of any rules.

@pgibbs I am open for discussing Jeanne Calment, but as most of us have stated repeatedly, there isn't any concrete evidence suggesting that she wasn’t 122.

Posted by: @pgibbs

↑

Posted by: @admin

↑

@pgibbs: That's a second warning for spreading false information. I've edited your post. Should I note the post will be edited, that's a third warning = six-month suspension.

So what is an acceptable condition for a claim to be disputed? Johnson Parks is not marked as disputed in any of the lists as far as I know and there are probably fewer people who dispute his case than Calment, yet you dont seem to object to his name being mentioned as disputed.

If you dont want Calment's case to be discussed you can declare that as an admin policy and we will know to abide by it, but if you want to allow open discussion on all supercentenarian subjects then I dont understand why pointing out that Calment is disputed is a violation of any rules.

 

This is because Johnson Parks is disputed for a very simple reason: the documents used to validate him didn't actually belong to the SC claimant (similarly to Mathew Beard). In the case of Jeanne Calment, there's an extensive paper trail of documentation from throughout her life which directly connects her birth and death. The fact that your conclusion relies entirely on non-documentary evidence like a changing signature instead of discrepancies in the documents demonstrates that the documentation for her case is actually very strong, regardless of what your opinion on her case is. 

If an actual dispute surrounding her documentation is discovered, such as if someone ever found that the Jeanne Calment born in 1875 actually died at a very young age and her parents named one of her younger sisters after her (similarly to Jesus Elias Loaiza Arenas or Dominga Coca Garcia), then nobody would have any issue with discussing it, assuming you can find strong evidence that this occurred (such as a death record). Contrary to past claims that we simply are refusing to accept "smoking gun" evidence due to us having a strong emotional attachment to Calment's age, this characterization doesn't apply to most people in this community. Of course, a few researchers associated with the GRG definitely have demonstrated an inability to admit any wrongdoing with past validations (e.g. Mathew Beard), but this just isn't the case with LongeviQuest and its affiliated groups. For example, I have no problem admitting that the research group I'm a part of made a mistake with listing Dominga Coca Garcia as pending, which is why we announced that her age was debunked as soon as the evidence was uncovered. We just haven't yet seen any convincing evidence that casts doubt on Calment's age. 

Posted by: @930310

↑

@pgibbs I am open for discussing Jeanne Calment, but as most of us have stated repeatedly, there isn't any concrete evidence suggesting that she wasn’t 122.

I am glad that you are open for discussion. I am not sure what you would accept as concrete evidence.

There is no one standalone piece of evidence that proves she was not 122. If you combine all the evidence it becomes very strong.

The unusual feature of Jeanne Calment's case is that there is an exceptional amount of well preserved official records. If you only look at those then there is nothing that looks out of place except that she was a longevity outlier by five years for her time. That is a huge gap given mortality rates beyond 115 years but there is always the chance that she had some special combination of genes that defied the odds.

To determine her real status you need to look at alternative evidence that some people might consider less concrete, e.g the signature change, her testimony and the hidden fact that she had TB. Actually the official records are not really so concrete. They rely on family attestation and as you know they are not always accurate.

Our goal is to get people to look at the alternative evidence so that the validation community accepts that her case is legitimately disputed. If we can do that then there is a good chance that the authorities will yield to a DNA test. That would be more concrete than any other kind of evidence in this case.

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

This is because Johnson Parks is disputed for a very simple reason: the documents used to validate him didn't actually belong to the SC claimant (similarly to Mathew Beard). In the case of Jeanne Calment, there's an extensive paper trail of documentation from throughout her life which directly connects her birth and death. The fact that your conclusion relies entirely on non-documentary evidence like a changing signature instead of discrepancies in the documents demonstrates that the documentation for her case is actually very strong, regardless of what your opinion on her case is. 

If an actual dispute surrounding her documentation is discovered, such as if someone ever found that the Jeanne Calment born in 1875 actually died at a very young age and her parents named one of her younger sisters after her (similarly to Jesus Elias Loaiza Arenas or Dominga Coca Garcia), then nobody would have any issue with discussing it, assuming you can find strong evidence that this occurred (such as a death record). Contrary to past claims that we simply are refusing to accept "smoking gun" evidence due to us having a strong emotional attachment to Calment's age, this characterization doesn't apply to most people in this community. Of course, a few researchers associated with the GRG definitely have demonstrated an inability to admit any wrongdoing with past validations (e.g. Mathew Beard), but this just isn't the case with LongeviQuest and its affiliated groups. For example, I have no problem admitting that the research group I'm a part of made a mistake with listing Dominga Coca Garcia as pending, which is why we announced that her age was debunked as soon as the evidence was uncovered. We just haven't yet seen any convincing evidence that casts doubt on Calment's age. 

I have deep respect for all the researchers here many of whom have been validating longevity cases longer than I have. I am also optimistic that LongeviQuest will improve standards.

What I don't understand is why people can't see that Jeanne Calment was inauthentic when it has become so clear to us. Those who respond don't even seem willing to accept that there is any cause for concern and claim that she should not even be considered disputed. Part of the problem seems to be misinformation about our motives. This came from a source that LongeviQuest now consider discredited. I hope that means it has been put to rest. In any case, even if nobody trusts us it does not change the validity of the evidence we have found. It can easily be checked so I don't think that can account for the reticence.

Another problem seems to be that people say the exceptionally good paper trail for Calment proves her case. This is patently not true since the switch hypothesis is entirely consistent with the documentation. The reason that there are so many available records is that she lived in France. It seems that there is some concern that if her case is false then all other cases are thrown into question. Is this why people are so against it? Of course many cases from around her time have indeed been debunked, but Zak and I reviewed other validations at the top of the list and found that cases such as Knauss are strong. Checking the paper work is not enough if someone is an outlier or near the top, but it is not hard to check for switch opportunities and eliminate them. The system wont come tumbling down if Calment is inauthentic.

Another possible reason for people not accepting it is the shear quantity of evidence that needs to be looked at. We are not allowed to refer to our external work but it is very hard to present the full evidence in a forum post. We have been working on a more concise report that summarises the essential details, but it wont fit on a couple of pages. 

Some people say that it is implausible that the switch would ever happen. I think anyone who has worked on longevity validations for any time understands that the filter which selects the longest living people also selects some of the most extraordinary reasons for age fraud out of the world's population. Most false cases can be eliminated by checking more paper work but inevitably there are going to be a very exceptional few that pass that filter too. If someone is as big a longevity outlier as Calment then you have to look harder.    

Posted by: @pgibbs

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

This is because Johnson Parks is disputed for a very simple reason: the documents used to validate him didn't actually belong to the SC claimant (similarly to Mathew Beard). In the case of Jeanne Calment, there's an extensive paper trail of documentation from throughout her life which directly connects her birth and death. The fact that your conclusion relies entirely on non-documentary evidence like a changing signature instead of discrepancies in the documents demonstrates that the documentation for her case is actually very strong, regardless of what your opinion on her case is. 

If an actual dispute surrounding her documentation is discovered, such as if someone ever found that the Jeanne Calment born in 1875 actually died at a very young age and her parents named one of her younger sisters after her (similarly to Jesus Elias Loaiza Arenas or Dominga Coca Garcia), then nobody would have any issue with discussing it, assuming you can find strong evidence that this occurred (such as a death record). Contrary to past claims that we simply are refusing to accept "smoking gun" evidence due to us having a strong emotional attachment to Calment's age, this characterization doesn't apply to most people in this community. Of course, a few researchers associated with the GRG definitely have demonstrated an inability to admit any wrongdoing with past validations (e.g. Mathew Beard), but this just isn't the case with LongeviQuest and its affiliated groups. For example, I have no problem admitting that the research group I'm a part of made a mistake with listing Dominga Coca Garcia as pending, which is why we announced that her age was debunked as soon as the evidence was uncovered. We just haven't yet seen any convincing evidence that casts doubt on Calment's age. 

I have deep respect for all the researchers here many of whom have been validating longevity cases longer than I have. I am also optimistic that LongeviQuest will improve standards.

What I don't understand is why people can't see that Jeanne Calment was inauthentic when it has become so clear to us. Those who respond don't even seem willing to accept that there is any cause for concern and claim that she should not even be considered disputed. Part of the problem seems to be misinformation about our motives. This came from a source that LongeviQuest now consider discredited. I hope that means it has been put to rest. In any case, even if nobody trusts us it does not change the validity of the evidence we have found. It can easily be checked so I don't think that can account for the reticence.

Another problem seems to be that people say the exceptionally good paper trail for Calment proves her case. This is patently not true since the switch hypothesis is entirely consistent with the documentation. The reason that there are so many available records is that she lived in France. It seems that there is some concern that if her case is false then all other cases are thrown into question. Is this why people are so against it? Of course many cases from around her time have indeed been debunked, but Zak and I reviewed other validations at the top of the list and found that cases such as Knauss are strong. Checking the paper work is not enough if someone is an outlier or near the top, but it is not hard to check for switch opportunities and eliminate them. The system wont come tumbling down if Calment is inauthentic.

Another possible reason for people not accepting it is the shear quantity of evidence that needs to be looked at. We are not allowed to refer to our external work but it is very hard to present the full evidence in a forum post. We have been working on a more concise report that summarises the essential details, but it wont fit on a couple of pages. 

Some people say that it is implausible that the switch would ever happen. I think anyone who has worked on longevity validations for any time understands that the filter which selects the longest living people also selects some of the most extraordinary reasons for age fraud out of the world's population. Most false cases can be eliminated by checking more paper work but inevitably there are going to be a very exceptional few that pass that filter too. If someone is as big a longevity outlier as Calment then you have to look harder.    

 

 

I find it interesting how you believe that Sarah Knauss is a stronger case than Calment's, since I would argue the opposite, considering the fact that Knauss' earliest document was from nearly a decade after her birth, so she theoretically could've been a year or two younger than claimed (although I strongly doubt this for a few reasons). 

Also, while this is obviously far more subjective, another aspect that personally makes me even more convinced of her case's legitimacy are the photos of her from throughout her life. For instance, when I compare photos of her from before and after 1934 (when the alleged identity swap would've happened), they look like the exact same person to me (same brow, nose, cheekbones, and eyes):

But if you compare an actual photo of Yvonne with the same later-life photo of Jeanne, they honestly look like completely different people. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I just can't fathom how someone could think the person on the left even remotely resembles the person on the right in this comparison:

I would even go as far as to say that Yvonne really didn't look anything like her mother despite their relation, since I think she resembled her father much more. Probably the most obvious facial differences between the two of them are the nose shapes and the eyes. Yvonne's nose is more "round" and her eyes are further apart, which are two things that certainly won't change as a result of a few decades of aging.

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

I find it interesting how you believe that Sarah Knauss is a stronger case than Calment's, since I would argue the opposite, considering the fact that Knauss' earliest document was from nearly a decade after her birth, so she theoretically could've been a year or two younger than claimed (although I strongly doubt this for a few reasons). 

It was of course Zak who found the 1990 census record for her at age 10. In addition we found an entry in the index of the church register that indicated that she had been baptised. This means that her baptism record must have been available at that time and that they checked it after the family moved to Allentown. The church clerics were meticulous about details and since Sarah was then confirmed and married in her new church we can be confident that they had checked her date of birth for us. No validation is 100% certain but Knauss is pretty good.  

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Also, while this is obviously far more subjective, another aspect that personally makes me even more convinced of her case's legitimacy are the photos of her from throughout her life. For instance, when I compare photos of her from before and after 1934 (when the alleged identity swap would've happened), they look like the exact same person to me (same brow, nose, cheekbones, and eyes):

But if you compare an actual photo of Yvonne with the same later-life photo of Jeanne, they honestly look like completely different people. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I just can't fathom how someone could think the person on the left even remotely resembles the person on the right in this comparison:

I would even go as far as to say that Yvonne really didn't look anything like her mother despite their relation, since I think she resembled her father much more. Probably the most obvious facial differences between the two of them are the nose shapes and the eyes. Yvonne's nose is more "round" and her eyes are further apart, which are two things that certainly won't change as a result of a few decades of aging.

Lots of people have stared at these photos most of which are indistinct. We thought Mme Calment looked more like Yvonne but others like you see it differently. We can only conclude that they looked very similar over time. The lighting, changes in facial expression and aging can change slightly the way they look. We find it more reliable that one of the family members who knew Mme Calment well from before the time of your photo on the right swore that the photo on the left could not possibly be the same person he knew.

Posted by: @pgibbs

↑

So what is an acceptable condition for a claim to be disputed? Johnson Parks is not marked as disputed in any of the lists as far as I know and there are probably fewer people who dispute his case than Calment, yet you dont seem to object to his name being mentioned as disputed.

If you dont want Calment's case to be discussed you can declare that as an admin policy and we will know to abide by it, but if you want to allow open discussion on all supercentenarian subjects then I dont understand why pointing out that Calment is disputed is a violation of any rules.

Discussing Calment's case is perfectly fine here, as you can see from the replies in these past couple of weeks. The reason that Calment is NOT disputed is simple: no concrete or tangible evidence has been presented so far. (I don't need to continue the discussion from the last number of posts, you understand the stance of the Admin team with regard to her case.)

In other words, should evidence be conjured up that proves there is no consistency in what records tell about Mrs Calment's age, then this would be a different story. 

According to this Facebook post, Juan Jose Vera Villalva may have passed away on 30 March 2024, at the likely age of 103, but claimed age of 115. His grandson mentions that his grandfather passed away, but does not mention the name of his grandfather. I believe Juan Jose Vera Villalva is his maternal grandfather, as the surname is different than his grandson. 

EDIT: He may have passed away on 29 March, NOT 30 March. Sorry for the mistake