Posted by: @fish

↑

@futurist 

 

This seems the 1870 census entry for the Henderson family:

(Enumerated 8 July, 1870, Pct. 1, Fayette, Texas, Post Office: La Grange)

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MXGT-BCV?lang=en

• W. Anderson, age 25
• Maggy Anderson, age 20
• Lee Anderson, age 3
• Pamillis (Cornelia?) Anderson, age 1
• Anne Anderson, age 20 (probably a sister of Willis Anderson)
• Mathilda Anderson, age 5

Here are three other documents:

Margaret Jones in 1940, living in Gonzales, Texas, age 93: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KWV2-5P7

 

Margaret Jones in 1950, living in Gonzales, Texas, age 90: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6XPM-1SFS

 

1960 death record of Margaret Johnson Jones, age 93: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:K34J-XXF

 

The 1870 census record and the 1867 marriage record, it does appear that Margaret Jones was actually born in or around 1850.

 

Additionally, there may be an enumeration for relating to Margaret Jones in the Slave Schedule censuses of 1850 and 1860,

Thanks, Fish! That's probably what Ollie found! And Yes, I do believe that she was very likely the age claimed or at least extraordinarily close to it. As for finding her in the slave schedule censuses, how exactly would we do that? These censuses don't provide names, after all--or do they?

BTW, off-topic, but if you don't mind me asking: How come you stopped responding to my PMs on familysearch.org? (I don't think that I wrote anything offensive or personal to you. You just kind of abrutly stopped responding, and I don't know why.)

I guess that if we won't be able to (conclusively) find her in the 1850 and/or 1860 slave schedule censuses, would artificially verifying her as born in 1851 and as age 109 at the time of her death be an option? That way, we'd be able to artificially fit the 1870 US Census into the 20-year-window. A very suboptimal choice, but this would be the option of last resort if we won't be able to verify her in any other way.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

@Mendocino Do you know of any other extensive oral interviews with SCs and semi-SCs (people aged 107+)?

Here is one for Dr. Tolbert Fanning Hill (1874-1982) from 1979, on his 105th birthday:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100812033250/https://www.uis.edu/archives/memoirs/HILLT.pdf

And here is one for Andrew Small (1891-2003) from 1999:

https://www.wisvetsmuseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Small-Andrew_OH103.pdf

Here's one from 1958 with Narcissa Rickman (1855-1968):

https://soundcloud.com/jimmy-lindberg-787842254/interview-with-mrs-rickman-103-hendersonville-1958

Here's one from Lois Wooten (1914-2025) from 2014 back when she was "only" 100:

https://dc.library.okstate.edu/digital/collection/hundred/id/2296

Here are the details for it:

https://dc.library.okstate.edu/digital/collection/hundred/id/2040

I know that the US had World War II draft registration cards and that the UK had a National Register in 1939:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Registration_Act_1939

But did any other countries have anything comparable? And I mean other than censuses. Especially some kind of World War II registration for their population or at least their adult men that is capable of being easily searched for online, such as on genealogy websites or whatever?

Might be a bit of a rude question, but still worth asking: Which SCs and near-SCs (people agead 107-109) had the highest body mass index (BMI) in their youth? I don't mean hypothesizing, but instead relying on actual data, such as WWII draft registration cards.

Gordon Saunders (1910-2020) was 5'2" and 170 pounds according to his WWII draft registration card:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QLFS-6SWZ?lang=en

I used this BMI calculator (age 30, since that was his age when his WWII draft card was made) to calculate his BMI in late 1940, which was 31.1:

https://www.calculator.net/bmi-calculator.html?cage=30&csex=m&cheightfeet=5&cheightinch=2&cpound=170&cheightmeter=180&ckg=65&printit=0&ctype=standard&x=Calculate

A BMI of 31.1 would actually be Obese Class I, or mildly obese.

Did any other SC or near SC have a comparable--or higher--BMI in their youth?

Really is quite impressive for a man who was mildly obese (not just overweight) at age 30 to live to age 110!

Nothing positive can come from drawing attention to  challenges of this type - that people may have been through in the past Futurist.

Most people here respect longevity and the human spirit behind it. (for each individual)

Everyone has some time in life where they are not comfortable with some aspect of “their physicality”.

So why go there for anyone - past or present.

Well, I just think that it's admirable to celebrate someone who has defied the odds in such a significant way, considering that on average heavier people live shorter lives, no?

Fair enough, from your perspective, I guess.

Yeah, as someone who is overweight but not obese myself, it's definitely admirable that someone who was not merely overweight, but actually slightly obese, in their young adulthood actually managed to become a SC--and that they were a male, to boot!

@Mendocino How specifically did you find out Michael DeSantis's height? I can't find a WWII draft registration card for him on FamilySearch.org.

Also, as a side note, would it be permissible for you to please post the documentation for Moon Fun Chin that is publicly available on FamilySearch.org in this thread? Since it is already public documentation, I would presume that there should be no issues with you doing this--right?

@futurist His WWII Draft Card is easily available on ancestry.com. Here is a sharable link https://www.ancestry.com/sharing/32628490?mark=7b22746f6b656e223a224b5a4b773368664f39394664464f2f317063653563656551614b6c75514b65636654744348716c776631633d222c22746f6b656e5f76657273696f6e223a225632227d

His heght is on the back

Can you please post the front version of this card as well? I just want to see it so that I can look at all of its details and try figuring out why exactly familysearch.org doesn't have it (yet?).

It's very interesting because here, where the Ohio WWII draft registration cards are on Familysearch.org, there appears to be a gap where DeSantis is supposed to be:

https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/catalog/3757144

I don't know why exactly this is the case, but I have just asked about this on the Familysearch.org blog/forum.

Interesting that Frederick Frazier (1880-1993) apparently doesn't have a WWI draft registration card but does have a WWII draft registration card:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XP1T-24Z?lang=en

@futurist You should be able to see the front from the link I posted, but here it is

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Interesting that Frederick Frazier (1880-1993) apparently doesn't have a WWI draft registration card but does have a WWII draft registration card:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XP1T-24Z?lang=en

The WWI draft registration is significantly more spotty than for WWII. Just in my own family, I have noticed many ancestors/relatives that have a WWII but not WWI draft card, despite being of the right age. 

Posted by: @musicotic

↑

@futurist You should be able to see the front from the link I posted, but here it is

-- attachment is not available --

Thanks! And Yeah, I now see what you mean. I have to open the image from Ancestry.com in a separate tab and then adjust its width parameter from 500 to something much bigger, such as 2,000. It works for me now!

Posted by: @musicotic

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Interesting that Frederick Frazier (1880-1993) apparently doesn't have a WWI draft registration card but does have a WWII draft registration card:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XP1T-24Z?lang=en

The WWI draft registration is significantly more spotty than for WWII. Just in my own family, I have noticed many ancestors/relatives that have a WWII but not WWI draft card, despite being of the right age.

Are you sure that your ancestors were already in the US at the time of WWI?

Interestingly enough, Randolph Davis (1873-1984) does not have a WWI draft registration card, though I don't know whether it was because he wasn't enumerated or whether because he was already claiming to be slightly too old for the draft. (The draft only covered people born in September 1872 or later, and Randolph himself claimed May 1872 in the 1900 US Census. If he wanted to avoid the draft, then slightly inflating his age is very possible. Who was going to check when he didn't have a birth record, after all?)

For Michael DeSantis, I really wonder if his birth record says March 26 and not May 26 by mistake. 1900 is likely correct--I mean, why would they screw up with the year?--but since he had an older sibling (Maggie DeSantis) born in late June 1899, May 26 would make more sense than March 26 since it would mean an 11-month birth gap between siblings instead of only a 9-month birth gap. He claimed May 26 during WWI, during WWII, and again in his late-life, which really does make me wonder if the March 26 on his birth record was a mistake. But without an original baptismal record and/or original family Bible entry, there really wouldn't be any way to check this, I would suppose?

@futurist yes, i am. My ancestors all immigrated by 1912 at the latest. I've been doing genealogy research since I was 10

What country are they originally from? Italy? The Russian Empire? Or somewhere else?

@futurist Italy, Ireland, Croatia, England, Germany, France mostly.

Pretty cool!

Croatia was a part of Austria-Hungary until 1918!

You might want to check if you are eligible for European Union citizenship, because you might be for countries that have a law of return for their co-ethnics abroad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return

@futurist I am eligible for both Croatian and Italian citizenship, but it's not worth the financial investment into the process for me.

Fair enough!

Personally, if I was eligible for EU citizenship, I'd probably take it. I've got dual Israeli-US citizenship but no EU citizenship. I don't think that I can get EU citizenship since Ukraine isn't an EU member country yet and even if it was, I certainly wouldn't want to get Ukrainian citizenship for as long as Ukraine still has a military draft. And none of my ancestors lived in the Second Polish Republic for very long, so I don't think that I'm eligible for Polish citizenship, unfortunately.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

And none of my ancestors lived in the Second Polish Republic for very long, so I don't think that I'm eligible for Polish citizenship, unfortunately.

I stand corrected. None of my ancestors since my paternal great-grandfather. His father, my paternal great-grandfather, did in fact live in the Second Polish Republic until WWII, when he was murdered in the Holocaust together with most of his family.

I wonder if this would actually make me eligible for Polish citizenship.

Do we really need to know all this Futurist?

Please try and keep your topics relevant, or at least reasonably generic - rather than cluttering up the forum unnecessarily.

@chrisr To be fair to Futurist, this is his own topic, so it's reasonable he should be permitted to post what he wants, along as it is not inappropriate, which nothing he has posted so far has been. Across longevity fourms, many people share personal stories of their families and ancestry, as an interest in longevity and genealogy often go together. Futurist additionally wasn't the only member here to describe his family background so I don't see why you're addressing only him. 

If he were making these posts in unrelated threads, then it would be reasonable to request he avoids doing so, but he's making them in a thread specifically named "Futurist's Topic" so it is very unfair to dicate to him what he can and can't post. If members do not wish to read Futurist's posts or at leat those not specifically addressing (but arguably connected to) longevity, then they'd do well to avoid a topic specifically created for him.

With respect, you are not a moderator or administrator and it's not your place to tell someone to stop "cluttering" you a thread which is specifically their own. I doubt Futurist would tell you to stop posting in "ChrisR's topic" if you had one. In the past, you have created fourm topics about cricket, which had far less to do with longevity than ancestry and yet, Futurist (or no-one) told you to stop "cluttering" up the fourm. Does the fourm really have to know that The Netherlands beat South Africa in cricket or that you're watching the Australian Open? At least Futurist has restricted hie non-longvevity related posts to one topic. 

In addition, many members here have posted content which may be somewhat off-topic (though I'd argue what Futurist has said isn't hugely off-topic) and yet you've said nothing. You only seem to interact with Futurist to criticise and arguably, belittle him, in a way that you do not treat any other member, or I'm sure, wish to be treated yourself. You seem to find issue and criticism with essentially anything he says and take any opportunity to make that known to him. Its more than understandable of you don't enjoy his posts, but you could simply ignore them, anger than trying to dicate what he can and can't say in his own topic.

I hope this doesn't come across as a personal attack, as I find you, in general, to be a dedicated, intelligent and polite member of the fourm and I appreciate your contributions but I think the way you have treated, and are treating, Futurist is unfair, and that, he too, deserves compassion and consideration. By all means, call him out if he were to do anything you find objectionable, but don't continually criticise him unnecessarily for seemingly no reason. If for whatever reason, you don't appreciate his posts, then it's very easy ro just ignore them, especially if they're contained in a specific topic. Again, I don't want to begin a confrontation or any unpleasantness, I just hope that all members here can post in a supportive and open environment without feeling they need to brace for constant criticism. I'm sure you would dislike someone behaving like that to you, I know I would, so please be mindful to treat others like we would like to be treated. The tone you've taken with Futurist, after he revealed his close family member was murdered in the Holocaust, history's latgest genocide, is particularly unsympathetic and troubling and not how we should be treating others.

I do get your points Simon, but the issue for me is that when one comes on the Forum with limited time, sifting through so many posts of this type clogs up the Forum,

Equally, we have one special set of rules for one person - as a gesture of good faith to that person.

If we had a special heading for ChrisR topics, SimonFrogg topics and everyone else, the Forum would be completely chaotic. So a bit of “give and take” back to the rest of us would not be a bad thing.

Anyway, those are the two sides of it:

@chrisr I do understand your frustration, and there’s certainly been times when Futurist and other users, have created a very large number of topics in a way which definitely does clog up the forum in an unappealing way. Equally, I think the compromise which has been reached is a positive one, allowing Futurist to have his own topic, whilst not creating multiple topics at any given time, which does, as you say, create an overwhelming amount of information to sift through.

A similar strategy has been used on the 110 Club for users who like to post a lot of content or content which may be somewhat off-topic, which, in my view, is fair. 

You’re also right to state that a topic for everyone would be unsustainable, so perhaps just having an off-topic thread (or potentially several for different categories) would be appropriate? So users feel they have a space to share their views and what’s important to them without curtailing other’s experience of the forum.

I tend to look through the recent topics page first, so each topic only shows up only once, but if one looks through recent posts, then that would of course include all posts of any topic so it’d be harder to filter. I’m not technically minded, but I wonder if there’s a way to mute certain topics or to filter them out of “recent posts”. If so, that may enable a situation that suits everyone.