@aquanaut_chalk I don't want to speculate about living people.

If there was a man who lived to be 117+ he most likely won't have the documentation to prove it. No plausible male claims to 117 have ever been discovered.

@024tomi I suppose it's the same reason that keeps him from being listed as validated by LAS. Kimura has been recognized as the oldest man ever so there is almost a too high burden of evidence for anyone else to be recognized as such.

@930310 Yes, but does that really make a difference? If, let's suppose, there had been a validated 117-year-old man, with this very same level of documentation, Anísio would be validated. Why the existence, or the non-existence of another person influence one's validation?

@024Tomi Agreed. If the documents belonging to a man older than Kimura meets the qualifications of the validating process, I see no reason to exclude this man from being the WOME. I don't think that 'Kimura being the WOME' is a valid excuse to prevent Anísio from being the new WOME. 

Quite amazing that Robert Early (1849-1960; lived 111y,1d) was only dislodged from the top 10 oldest verified/verifiable men ever in 1989!

Also quite interesting that James King (1854-1967; lived 112y,202d) was only dislodged from the top 10 oldest verified/verifiable men ever at the start of the 21st century!

Posted by: @930310

↑

@heatwave116 what about Donald Butler (21 Aug 1885 - 27 Dec 1998) of SC, USA?

Worth noting that his 1900 US Census listed him under a different name (Davis Butler). Though that's not necessarily disqualifying. Gertrude Weaver comes to mind.

I do wonder why a WWI draft registration card doesn't exist for him, though. South Carolina didn't destroy its WWI draft registration cards, did it?

Posted by: @930310

↑

@aquanaut_chalk I don't want to speculate about living people.

If there was a man who lived to be 117+ he most likely won't have the documentation to prove it. No plausible male claims to 117 have ever been discovered.

Not really surprising when you think about it since the second-oldest verified woman ever was younger than 119.5, which would equal to below age 116.5 for men. Calment truly was an extraordinary exception. We never had any man who was remotely equivalent to her, even adjusting for sex. That would be a man who reached age 119 or at least came close to doing so.

[Topic split from here.]

If I remember correctly, Mr. Andrew Frank Hatch from Louisiana was once considered to be a plausible male claimant to 117, but was later debunked. Mr. Jintaro Tanaka was once considered a plausible male claimant to both 117 and 118 but was also later debunked. My question though is, at what point do we consider a longevity claimant to no longer be plausible? I mean Li Ching Yuen, 256, is obviously considered fake due to his extreme longevity claim, as is James Olofintuyi, Dhaqabo Ebba, Mbah Gotho, and Ikenna Ofodile's 195 (now 196) year old grandfather. But at what point is the line drawn? People have pointed out that if Jeanne Calment had claimed to be 122 now, she probably would've just been written off as false and Sarah Knauss would've held the longevity record from the 90s until being surpassed by Kane Tanaka in 2022. I think longevity "outliers" of 3 years for men and 5 years for women (exluding Jeanne Calment, as she herself was an actual outlier) should be given a chance. Remember, Christian Mortensen was an outlier by 2.5 years at the time of his passing, and Jeanne Calment was an outlier by 5! But at what age is a person no longer considered plausible, and instantly dismissed?

@aquanaut_chalk Why do you think that Jeanne Calment, had she lived now, would be written off as false? Who are the “people” claiming this? If Jeanne Calment had lived today, being born in 1901 and turning 122 this year, then almost certainly she would’ve been validated in around 2011 or 2012, but likely only a short time after her 110th birthday, as French supercentenarians are very easy to validate (mostly) and the GRG, led by Dr Coles, was still validating 110 year olds. Jeanne Calment wouldn’t have simply appeared out of nowhere at 120+ and be labelled a fake. She would’ve been validated for years and even had her case only become apparent when she was already an extreme age, she almost certainly would’ve been validated. She’s a supercentenarian from a country with some of the best documentation. Why would this be dismissed and she bizarrely looked upon as a fake had she lived 26 years later? There’s no comparable example of a (Western) European supercentenarian from the last few decades from a country with such complete documentation as France simply being dismissed as a fake for no other than a very high age, especially since that supercentenarian has likely been validated since 110-112.

@simon-frogg I meant that if she wasn't known and then just all of a sudden came out of nowhere and claimed to be 122. She would've probably been dismissed due to the fact that she would've still been a strong outlier. Only in that specific situation, would she have been dismissed. 

@aquanaut_chalk That would certainly be unprecedented and very different to what really happened with Jeanne Calment in the 1990s, so it’s hard to say exactly what would happen, but if the documentation was there, then she would still be most likely validated even despite the inherent unlikelihood of a supercentenarian reached such a high age. If she was as well documented as the real Jeanne Calment, then she would be validated, even if only discovered very late.

I think you need to realise why it is that there are hardly any claimants that “come out of nowhere” that turn out to be true. Calment did not just claim to be 122 in 1997, she also claimed to be 100 in 1975, and 101 in 1976, and so on and so on.

One of the key tells with false claimants is why haven’t they had coverage when reaching previous extreme ages? If someone suddenly declares they are 122, why didn’t we hear about them at 120? 115? 110? 108? 

I don’t think we would necessarily dismiss a 122 year old claimant instantly, but it’s never a good sign if that’s the first we’ve heard from them.

@beaumont true. To be honest I don't know much about Jeanne Calment. The first person I heard of her from was Nikolay Zak who insisted that she was Yvonne. I had privately messaged him via Facebook and we spoke about it quite often. Then about 2 years later I joined this forum. Zak came out with other bizarre and wild theories on perfectly validated SCs like Kane Tanaka, Lucile Randon, Emma Morano and Jiroemon Kimura which I thought were inaccurate and ridiculous. As time went on, the people on this forum helped me to understand that Zak has no credibility and often leads people on. Unfortunately I was one of those people. But you are 100% right about late declarations. Thank you. Like Andrelino Vieira da Silva who was "discovered" to be 120 in 2021. Will all due respect, he's probably not even 85. But I agree with what you said

Posted by: @beaumont

↑

I think you need to realise why it is that there are hardly any claimants that “come out of nowhere” that turn out to be true. Calment did not just claim to be 122 in 1997, she also claimed to be 100 in 1975, and 101 in 1976, and so on and so on.

One of the key tells with false claimants is why haven’t they had coverage when reaching previous extreme ages? If someone suddenly declares they are 122, why didn’t we hear about them at 120? 115? 110? 108? 

I don’t think we would necessarily dismiss a 122 year old claimant instantly, but it’s never a good sign if that’s the first we’ve heard from them.

It's actually quite uncommon for someone to spontaneously start claiming an extreme age, after claiming to be born at a later date for their entire life up to that point. Typically, their claimed age will be based on some sort of mid-life documentation, such as a delayed birth record or an ID card. Most SC claims from Latin America have an ID card from at least a few decades earlier, proving that they had been claiming to be that old for a while, but that doesn't really give further support for their age, unless it happens to be a very early ID card (some Colombian cases have ID cards from the mid 1950s). They might seemingly "appear out of nowhere" because their age wasn't seen as newsworthy by the media up until that point.  

From my experience, the vast majority of false longevity claims aren't the the product of intentional, late-life age inflation, but instead were the result of illiteracy and poor documentation. You'll sometimes see people claiming to be older than what their documentation states, usually with the excuse that their birth was "registered late", but they would've probably been claiming that long before their supposed age became noteworthy. 

One exception to this would be the more religiously-motivated claims, typically from Asia, where being extremely old would be seen as a sign of wisdom and enlightenment, but those seem to be less common now.

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @beaumont

↑

I think you need to realise why it is that there are hardly any claimants that “come out of nowhere” that turn out to be true. Calment did not just claim to be 122 in 1997, she also claimed to be 100 in 1975, and 101 in 1976, and so on and so on.

One of the key tells with false claimants is why haven’t they had coverage when reaching previous extreme ages? If someone suddenly declares they are 122, why didn’t we hear about them at 120? 115? 110? 108? 

I don’t think we would necessarily dismiss a 122 year old claimant instantly, but it’s never a good sign if that’s the first we’ve heard from them.

It's actually quite uncommon for someone to spontaneously start claiming an extreme age, after claiming to be born at a later date for their entire life up to that point. Typically, their claimed age will be based on some sort of mid-life documentation, such as a delayed birth record or an ID card. Most SC claims from Latin America have an ID card from at least a few decades earlier, proving that they had been claiming to be that old for a while, but that doesn't really give further support for their age, unless it happens to be a very early ID card (some Colombian cases have ID cards from the mid 1950s). They might seemingly "appear out of nowhere" because their age wasn't seen as newsworthy by the media up until that point.  

From my experience, the vast majority of false longevity claims aren't the the product of intentional, late-life age inflation, but instead were the result of illiteracy and poor documentation. You'll sometimes see people claiming to be older than what their documentation states, usually with the excuse that their birth was "registered late", but they would've probably been claiming that long before their supposed age became noteworthy. 

One exception to this would be the more religiously-motivated claims, typically from Asia, where being extremely old would be seen as a sign of wisdom and enlightenment, but those seem to be less common now.

 

And "starting from age 100" isn't everything. Charlie Smith was claiming to be 108 in 1955.

Posted by: @sailor-haumea

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @beaumont

↑

I think you need to realise why it is that there are hardly any claimants that “come out of nowhere” that turn out to be true. Calment did not just claim to be 122 in 1997, she also claimed to be 100 in 1975, and 101 in 1976, and so on and so on.

One of the key tells with false claimants is why haven’t they had coverage when reaching previous extreme ages? If someone suddenly declares they are 122, why didn’t we hear about them at 120? 115? 110? 108? 

I don’t think we would necessarily dismiss a 122 year old claimant instantly, but it’s never a good sign if that’s the first we’ve heard from them.

It's actually quite uncommon for someone to spontaneously start claiming an extreme age, after claiming to be born at a later date for their entire life up to that point. Typically, their claimed age will be based on some sort of mid-life documentation, such as a delayed birth record or an ID card. Most SC claims from Latin America have an ID card from at least a few decades earlier, proving that they had been claiming to be that old for a while, but that doesn't really give further support for their age, unless it happens to be a very early ID card (some Colombian cases have ID cards from the mid 1950s). They might seemingly "appear out of nowhere" because their age wasn't seen as newsworthy by the media up until that point.  

From my experience, the vast majority of false longevity claims aren't the the product of intentional, late-life age inflation, but instead were the result of illiteracy and poor documentation. You'll sometimes see people claiming to be older than what their documentation states, usually with the excuse that their birth was "registered late", but they would've probably been claiming that long before their supposed age became noteworthy. 

One exception to this would be the more religiously-motivated claims, typically from Asia, where being extremely old would be seen as a sign of wisdom and enlightenment, but those seem to be less common now.

 

 

And "starting from age 100" isn't everything. Charlie Smith was claiming to be 108 in 1955.

 

I recall seeing a newspaper clipping of Jesus Elías Loaiza Arenas from when he was around "100", meaning that he was actually only in his mid 80s at the time of the article. 

Of course no piece of evidence means everything, but it’s certainly a very good indicator. 

These are all very good points.

One more minor point about the Calment case is that it came along BEFORE we had the type of data base and the general understanding of longevity that we have today.

It was believed the Izumi case of a 120+ male was correct and in addition we didn’t have a large number of 113+ cases (as an example) to fully understand just how high the annual mortality rate is from (and before) that level of age.

That said, I believe anyone today at 122 would be validated with the depth of proof and evidence her life and events were able to deliver.

Posted by: @aquanaut

↑

It does make me wonder if there was a man out there who indeed did make it to 117, but was never proven. Or if there WOULD have been a man who made it to 117, but whose life was unfortunately cut short during a war or accident. I personally believe that Juan Vicente Pérez Mora, Eusebio Quintero Lopez, Efrain Antonio Rios Garcia, and Francisco Juarez Iglesias all look very healthy and I think they have strong potential to make it to 117. And if Otilio Dominguez Santos gets validated, he too has strong potential. I want to ask for everyone's opinion. Do you guys think that there was a man in history that made it to 117? I think it is possible and I also think it is certain that we will see one soon.

Edward Harlman was a Jamaican-US male claim to age 117 who died in 1997 and who was probably false (though he was consistent about his claimed age for the last several decades of his life), but without knowing his parents' names or finding a birth/baptismal record for him, we can't know for sure just how old he actually was.

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @beaumont

↑

I think you need to realise why it is that there are hardly any claimants that “come out of nowhere” that turn out to be true. Calment did not just claim to be 122 in 1997, she also claimed to be 100 in 1975, and 101 in 1976, and so on and so on.

One of the key tells with false claimants is why haven’t they had coverage when reaching previous extreme ages? If someone suddenly declares they are 122, why didn’t we hear about them at 120? 115? 110? 108? 

I don’t think we would necessarily dismiss a 122 year old claimant instantly, but it’s never a good sign if that’s the first we’ve heard from them.

It's actually quite uncommon for someone to spontaneously start claiming an extreme age, after claiming to be born at a later date for their entire life up to that point. Typically, their claimed age will be based on some sort of mid-life documentation, such as a delayed birth record or an ID card. Most SC claims from Latin America have an ID card from at least a few decades earlier, proving that they had been claiming to be that old for a while, but that doesn't really give further support for their age, unless it happens to be a very early ID card (some Colombian cases have ID cards from the mid 1950s). They might seemingly "appear out of nowhere" because their age wasn't seen as newsworthy by the media up until that point.  

From my experience, the vast majority of false longevity claims aren't the the product of intentional, late-life age inflation, but instead were the result of illiteracy and poor documentation. You'll sometimes see people claiming to be older than what their documentation states, usually with the excuse that their birth was "registered late", but they would've probably been claiming that long before their supposed age became noteworthy. 

One exception to this would be the more religiously-motivated claims, typically from Asia, where being extremely old would be seen as a sign of wisdom and enlightenment, but those seem to be less common now.

 

Look at Tim Newton or Rolla Harrison Moore. They were both likely born in the 1880s, began significantly inflating their age in the 1910s, and died in the 1990s.

Posted by: @aquanaut

↑

If I remember correctly, Mr. Andrew Frank Hatch from Louisiana was once considered to be a plausible male claimant to 117, but was later debunked. Mr. Jintaro Tanaka was once considered a plausible male claimant to both 117 and 118 but was also later debunked. My question though is, at what point do we consider a longevity claimant to no longer be plausible? I mean Li Ching Yuen, 256, is obviously considered fake due to his extreme longevity claim, as is James Olofintuyi, Dhaqabo Ebba, Mbah Gotho, and Ikenna Ofodile's 195 (now 196) year old grandfather. But at what point is the line drawn? People have pointed out that if Jeanne Calment had claimed to be 122 now, she probably would've just been written off as false and Sarah Knauss would've held the longevity record from the 90s until being surpassed by Kane Tanaka in 2022. I think longevity "outliers" of 3 years for men and 5 years for women (exluding Jeanne Calment, as she herself was an actual outlier) should be given a chance. Remember, Christian Mortensen was an outlier by 2.5 years at the time of his passing, and Jeanne Calment was an outlier by 5! But at what age is a person no longer considered plausible, and instantly dismissed?

Christian Mortensen is actually an outlier by almost six years if one only looks at Danish-born men (a much smaller dataset). The second-oldest Danish-born man ever died one month short of age 110, after all.

So, Jeanne Calment is less of an outlier for French-born women than Christian Mortensen is for Danish-born men.

BTW, Andrew Hatch wasn't *conclusively* debunked. We have a 1940 US Census entry indicating that he was around 111 or 112 at the time of his death, but nothing at all from before that point in time. So, we just don't know for sure how old he was. He likely wasn't 117 based on statistical odds alone, though.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

BTW, Andrew Hatch wasn't *conclusively* debunked. We have a 1940 US Census entry indicating that he was around 111 or 112 at the time of his death, but nothing at all from before that point in time. So, we just don't know for sure how old he was. He likely wasn't 117 based on statistical odds alone, though.

There's a video of him on Facebook from June 2013, where he's walking around slowly with a cane and almost dancing. To me, his movements definitely don't appear like a 114.5 year old's. His age instead being around 108 at the time is definitely a lot more reasonable. 

@futurist Jeanne Calment was more of an outlier for her time, than Christian Mortensen was for his time