Posted by: @futurist

↑

I noticed that on the top 50 oldest living people list, only a single Latin American from outside of either Brazil or Argentina exists:

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

Brazil makes sense because it's by far the largest Latin American country, but still, one would have expected more Latin American countries to be represented there.

The top 50 oldest living men list is, of course, much more diverse when it comes to the array of Latin American countries that are on it.

I find this man's story interesting; specifically the fact that he died of cancer on his 109th birthday:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/monroe-county-fair-celebrity-erv-080059979.html

He refused radiation treatment for his cancer because he didn't want anyone else to know about his cancer.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

BTW, speaking of debunkings, I'm curious as to just how exactly LAS debunked Secundina Camarena Nieves (1891?-2005), because I personally couldn't find any "smoking gun" to debunk her case, and neither could @Fish.

@Mendocino Would you happen to have any information in regards to this woman's case that you would be capable of sharing?

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

BTW, speaking of debunkings, I'm curious as to just how exactly LAS debunked Secundina Camarena Nieves (1891?-2005), because I personally couldn't find any "smoking gun" to debunk her case, and neither could @Fish.

@Mendocino Would you happen to have any information in regards to this woman's case that you would be capable of sharing?

 

This is the most likely scenario, as far as I see it:

At some point in middle age, after she had moved to the United States, it appears that she ordered her birth record from Mexico, and was mistakenly given the record for a deceased older sister with the same name. This official document was then used for American government records, such as her Social Security application, but she never actually claimed to be born in 1891 herself, and would always state she was born in 1904. This would explain how she was able to give birth in 1944, at the supposed age of 53, since in actuality she would have been only 40.

This is obviously a lot less convincing, but I've also seen a photo of her taken sometime between 1934 and 1943, and she definitely didn't look like someone in their 40s or 50s, but one could obviously argue that she just looked younger due to her longevity genes. A similar argument could theoretically be made for her being able to give birth aged 53, but considering that even giving birth at the age of 50 is so rare that it lands you on a Wikipedia list dedicated to the oldest natural birth mothers of all time, I find it to be highly suspicious, especially when combined with the fact that she herself claimed to be 13 years younger.

While this case probably didn't set off any alarm bells for the researchers who investigated her case at the GRG due to their relative lack of experience in Latin American SC research, this kind of scenario has happened before, and simply guessing that she just deflated her age due to her having a younger husband shouldn't be enough to rule out the possibility of a (likely accidental) sibling swap. A SC case where the person in question either claimed throughout their entire life to be over a decade younger, or gave birth at an age that would be nearly biologically impossible would be highly questionable on its own, but a case where both of these situations occurred leads to the most logical conclusion being that she wasn't the child born in 1891, and she wasn't lying about being born in 1904. At this point, I wouldn't outright say that her case is "debunked" as I haven't seen a matching 1904 baptismal record, but it's entirely possible that the document was just lost by the church, as there appears to be a gap in births in her family between 1903 and 1907.

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

BTW, speaking of debunkings, I'm curious as to just how exactly LAS debunked Secundina Camarena Nieves (1891?-2005), because I personally couldn't find any "smoking gun" to debunk her case, and neither could @Fish.

@Mendocino Would you happen to have any information in regards to this woman's case that you would be capable of sharing?

 

This is the most likely scenario, as far as I see it:

At some point in middle age, after she had moved to the United States, it appears that she ordered her birth record from Mexico, and was mistakenly given the record for a deceased older sister with the same name. This official document was then used for American government records, such as her Social Security application, but she never actually claimed to be born in 1891 herself, and would always state she was born in 1904. This would explain how she was able to give birth in 1944, at the supposed age of 53, since in actuality she would have been only 40.

This is obviously a lot less convincing, but I've also seen a photo of her taken sometime between 1934 and 1943, and she definitely didn't look like someone in their 40s or 50s, but one could obviously argue that she just looked younger due to her longevity genes. A similar argument could theoretically be made for her being able to give birth aged 53, but considering that even giving birth at the age of 50 is so rare that it lands you on a Wikipedia list dedicated to the oldest natural birth mothers of all time, I find it to be highly suspicious, especially when combined with the fact that she herself claimed to be 13 years younger.

While this case probably didn't set off any alarm bells for the researchers who investigated her case at the GRG due to their relative lack of experience in Latin American SC research, this kind of scenario has happened before, and simply guessing that she just deflated her age due to her having a younger husband shouldn't be enough to rule out the possibility of a (likely accidental) sibling swap. A SC case where the person in question either claimed throughout their entire life to be over a decade younger, or gave birth at an age that would be nearly biologically impossible would be highly questionable on its own, but a case where both of these situations occurred leads to the most logical conclusion being that she wasn't the child born in 1891, and she wasn't lying about being born in 1904. At this point, I wouldn't outright say that her case is "debunked" as I haven't seen a matching 1904 baptismal record, but it's entirely possible that the document was just lost by the church, as there appears to be a gap in births in her family between 1903 and 1907.

 

First of all, if born in 1891, she would have given birth to her last child at the age of 52, not 53:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VGLB-BSL?lang=en

The claimed birthdate for her in 1891 was July 16, 1891 while the birth date for her last child was September 17, 1943. I do agree that this is borderline suspicious, but not 100% implausible. The fact that she claimed to be much younger doesn't help matters either, of course.

When it comes to the claim that her 1904 baptismal record was lost, shouldn't one check the baptismal records for her birthplace to see if there is any gap in documentation between 1903 and 1907? Because if there isn't, then it's not obvious that there is a missing baptismal record here. I also don't see a gap in sibling births as being that big of a deal. After all, Louisa Thiers was born long after the birth of her previous oldest sibling, for instance. And Secundina herself had her second-to-last child in December 1937, over five years before she finally had her last child.

The main argument in favor of her deflating her age is that she delayed her marriage by a decade due to the Mexican Revolution (1910-1921) and thus significantly deflated her age so that she could marry a much younger man. But I agree that it's just a hypothesis at this point in time.

I do think that it's a good idea for me to post the publicly available documentation for Secundina's sisters that I have found on FamilySearch.org, though:

Carolina Nieves Hernandez (February 24, 1893-unknown):

1893 baptism:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6MQC-94ZM?lang=en

She could have theoretically stolen the 1891-born Secundina's identity, but she would have then still had to significantly deflate her age by a decade and even so, she would have still had a final age of 112 if she was actually the 1891-born Secundina. I can't find a paper trail of her after her birth.

Maria Nieves Hernandez (February 21, 1902-after 1929):

1902 baptism:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6MQ8-QX6Z?lang=en

1922 marriage record:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QG7Z-JVSV?lang=en

1925 birth of child:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QG7C-1FSP?lang=en

1929 birth of child:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QG7C-MHBT?lang=en

Altagracia Nieves Hernandez (4 January 1907 – 25 June 1964)

1907 baptism:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6MQ8-G33Z?lang=en

1926 marriage record:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QG7C-YFPF?lang=en

There are a lot of her children's records which I will neglect to list here since there are too many of them.

1964 death (where she apparently deflates her age by a massive 12 years!):

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QG74-TDN4?lang=en

So, we have one case of someone in her family (her sister Altagracia) massively deflating her age, apparently, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Secundina did it. Of course, it also means that other than Carolina, Maria and Altagracia could not have stolen Secundina's identity because they have paper trails that extend after 1921. This raises the question as to whether there actually was a second Secundina born around 1904. Maybe, but I guess that we'll have to find her baptismal record to be sure of this.

That's ultimately the big issue: Even among the 1903-1906 baptisms for her area, I can't find any alternative baptismal record for her, which really does raise the question: Was her baptism really unregistered, or was she really born in 1891 and almost constitently deflate her age by around 13 years? The mystery remains!

@Mendocino: Mind if you post that 1930s or 1940s photo of her so that we can look at it and judge it for ourselves?

For Secundina, I think that there is a way to definitively figure out this question one way or the other even without finding a ~1904 baptismal record for her: Specifically by finding a 1910 Mexican census entry for her family. Then we can see if the Secundina on it is ~19 years old or ~6 years old. 1910 Mexican census entries were destroyed, but apparently some local versions might have survived:

https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Mexico_Census

"Mexican census returns were often destroyed, generally only the compiled statistical information remains. Some original census records of towns, municipios, and states still exist at the archives, but few are presently available to researchers. Search the FamilySearch Catalog for local censuses."

The challenge would be actually finding them and being allowed to inspect them.

There is a particular detail about this case that I believe should be known.

Secundina's youngest sibling, Benito, was born on 21 March, 1921.

Their mother, Tomasa Hernández Olvera was born 6 March, 1870, and was 51 years old at the time.

The paternal and materal grandparents recorded in Benito's baptism record match the reconstructed family tree, but the surnames of the maternal grandparents are swapped.

Here is the 1921 baptism.

Additionally, I looked through the burial records of Secundina's birth place from 1890-1906, and I did not find any burial record that could be attributed to the Nieves Hernández siblings.

Posted by: @fish

↑

There is a particular detail about this case that I believe should be known.

 

Secundina's youngest sibling, Benito, was born on 21 March, 1921.

Their mother, Tomasa Hernández Olvera was born 6 March, 1870, and was 51 years old at the time.

The paternal and materal grandparents recorded in Benito's baptism record match the reconstructed family tree, but the surnames of the maternal grandparents are swapped.

Here is the 1921 baptism.

 

Additionally, I looked through the burial records of Secundina's birth place from 1890-1906, and I did not find any burial record that could be attributed to the Nieves Hernández siblings.

What about burial records from after 1906?

I did not search through the burial records after 1906.

Posted by: @fish

↑

I did not search through the burial records after 1906.

OK.

FWIW, Secundina's 1921 marriage record lists a different birth date (not just birth year) for her relative to the 1891 baptismal record. You can see for yourself if you want to. You can check if Secundina's marriage record is unique in regards to this or if the other siblings also exhibit a similar discrepancy in the birth dates on their baptismal records vs. marriage records.

BTW, off-topic, but are you able to receive messages on familysearch.org? I have tried sending you messages (about SC validation) for several months or more but you never seem to respond, which makes me wonder whether you actually got these messages.

Also, in regards to the start of page 11 of my thread here, do you think that LQ should be made aware that Gerald Gilman was likely a year older than claimed?

Finally, should LQ be encouraged to downgrade James Wiggins's age from 112y,1d to 111y,1d and his birth year from 1879 to 1880, since he's not listed together with his parents--or anywhere else, as far as we can tell--on the 1880 US Census and since his parents got married at the start of January 1880?

@Mendocino I don't want to inquire about this too deeply since I am not a member of LQ, but I was wondering: If/once LQ will get around to verifying Aaron Bazemore's case, it is likely to verify him as 1882-1992 and a final age of 110 just to be on the safe side? His earliest record supports 1881 (actually 1880 but that's unlikely) and his mid-life records are split between 1881 and 1882. There's absolutely nothing for him from before 1900, but all of his documents until I think his 1930 US Census entry (which implies 1883, IIRC) either explicitly state (his WWI draft registration card states February 20, 1881, just like he claimed when he died 75 years later in April 1992) or imply a birth year in either 1881 or 1882.

Of course, there's some dispute as to whether he was born on February 20 (WWI draft card, death record) or March (1900 US Census), but it doesn't matter since he reached his final birthday either way and in any case, I think that February 20 is safer because he claimed it for at least 75 years.

For Mr. Bazemore, IIRC, the documentation goes like this:

1900 US Census: March 1880

1907 marriage record: Implies 1882

1910 US Census: Implies 1881

1911 marriage record (his first wife died young): Implies 1882

WWI draft card: February 20, 1881

1920 US Census: Implies 1881

1930 US Census: Implies 1883

And so forth.

When he has two (marriage) records from the first 35 years of his life (albeit neither from within the 20-year-window, and neither being his earliest record/document) implying an 1882 birth year for him, it seems too risky to validate him as 1881-1992 and a final age of 111, especially considering that we currently have absolutely nothing for him from before 1900, no?

I discovered a new historical Latin American SC claim:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6ZLX-DJN5?lang=en

I think that these are baptismal records for her grandchildren, but I'm not 100% sure:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:653M-VKQL?lang=en

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:653M-LF2Z?lang=en

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

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66C3-TXP1?lang=en

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6DCW-D84H?lang=en

Can anyone here find out anything more about this woman's case?

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @fish

↑

I did not search through the burial records after 1906.

OK.

FWIW, Secundina's 1921 marriage record lists a different birth date (not just birth year) for her relative to the 1891 baptismal record. You can see for yourself if you want to. You can check if Secundina's marriage record is unique in regards to this or if the other siblings also exhibit a similar discrepancy in the birth dates on their baptismal records vs. marriage records.

BTW, off-topic, but are you able to receive messages on familysearch.org? I have tried sending you messages (about SC validation) for several months or more but you never seem to respond, which makes me wonder whether you actually got these messages.

Also, in regards to the start of page 11 of my thread here, do you think that LQ should be made aware that Gerald Gilman was likely a year older than claimed?

Finally, should LQ be encouraged to downgrade James Wiggins's age from 112y,1d to 111y,1d and his birth year from 1879 to 1880, since he's not listed together with his parents--or anywhere else, as far as we can tell--on the 1880 US Census and since his parents got married at the start of January 1880?

Here is the second page of Secundina's 1921 marriage record? It lists her birth date as March 12, 1904, no?

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GPV5-RFB?view=index&action=view&cc=1918187&lang=en

Which is considerably different from the July 16, 1891 birth date of the 1891-born Secundina.

BTW, off-topic, but does Mauro Ambriz Tapia's marriage record list his age as 25?

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-958B-SX4H?view=index&personArk=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AQG36-JVZS&action=view&cc=1916243&lang=en

Posted by: @fish

↑

There is a particular detail about this case that I believe should be known.

 

Secundina's youngest sibling, Benito, was born on 21 March, 1921.

Their mother, Tomasa Hernández Olvera was born 6 March, 1870, and was 51 years old at the time.

The paternal and materal grandparents recorded in Benito's baptism record match the reconstructed family tree, but the surnames of the maternal grandparents are swapped.

Here is the 1921 baptism.

 

Additionally, I looked through the burial records of Secundina's birth place from 1890-1906, and I did not find any burial record that could be attributed to the Nieves Hernández siblings.

What I find interesting is that the birth date (not just birth year) on Secundina's 1904 marriage record doesn't appear to match with what the 1891-born Secundina had. See my post right above here.

When do you guys think that the last surviving person with a US WWII draft registration card will pass away? I'm inclined to say 2037-2041, most likely 2037-2039 because US-born men have had difficulty living beyond age 112 in recent years. The last surviving person with a US WWI draft registration card, Mauro Ambriz Tapia (he was in the US in the late 1910s as a farm laborer), died on April 18, 2011, four days after Walter Breuning, who was the second-last surviving person with a US WWI draft registration card. Both of them died around 92.5 years after the end of World War I.

BTW, apparently based on his WWII draft registration card, Richard Overton (1906-2018) might have been five days older than claimed:

He claimed May 11, 1906 later in life and initially that's what his WWII draft card appears to say as well, but for some reason, the 11 is later replaced with a 6, thus making it May 6, 1906.

Is there a birth record and/or baptismal record, especially an original one, that can help shed some light on this issue? Or perhaps some school census records? I know that Texas has surviving school census records for some counties.

If he was genuinely five days older, his final age would be 112y,235d instead of 112y,230d.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

I actually did find something for her just now:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:68FW-2513?lang=en

It's a 1923 immigration record. Apparently the date is September 20, 1923, so it was before her birthday. So, age 16 implies a birth year of 1906 for her, not 1907. However, the problem is that a birth year of 1906 for her would imply a final age of 108 for her, not 110 (birth year 1904) like she claimed.

And her immigration record is the only document from within the 20-year-window that we have. Her marriage record is from 1926 and actually does support 1904 but would only be from within the 20-year-window if a 1906 birth year (final age 108) was used for her. If we go with a birth year of 1905 (final age 109) or 1904 (final age 110), then her 1926 marriage reecord would NOT be within the 20-year-window for her.

And of course her 1923 immigration record is her earliest document, unless the GRG has found something even earlier for her from Macedonia.

If you're curious as to how I know it's her, Andon is her father's name (Slavic countries have patronymics) and the name of the village of her birth matches:

https://gerontology.fandom.com/wiki/Elisabeth_Kimoff

Anyway, it looks like I have now provisionally debunked this woman's case. I say provisionally because maybe she really was born in 1904. It's just a matter of whether this can actually be proven.

I think that LQ can still validate Elisabeth Kimoff, at age 108, as the oldest validated Macedonian-born person ever, no? That's still a significant national achievement, even if she, to our knowledge, fell short of SC status.

A GRG source told me that the GRG has already secured an original birth record from Macedonia for Elisabeth Kimoff, which apparently confirms a birth year of 1904 and thus a final age of 110 for her. So, her 1923 immigration record appears to have understated her age by a couple of years.

I felt like I should share this information.

@futurist GRG became a totally unreliable source after RY's left. Better to forget it.

I wasn't commenting on the (non-)reliability of GRG validations as a whole, just specifically on Elisabeth Kimoff's case. If I'm told that an original birth record from Macedonia exists for her, then why would they be lying about this specifically? It wasn't Waclaw who told me this, BTW, but rather another GRG source.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

@Sailor Haumea There's a FamilySearch.org catalog here where you are able to search for various places and see what kinds of documentation and records they (as in, each place) has:

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

BTW, off-topic, but in regards to Alice Meeder, I found a possible reference for her in an 1895 newspaper article:

https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=wyon18950208-01.1.8&srpos=1&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-alice+mcmahon+lorish---------

It mentions an Alice McMahon from Middlebury, New York getting a certificate of indigence and/or lunacy along with some other people. We know that Alice's younger sister Cora was an epileptic, so maybe Alice had some mental health problems in her youth as well? Just a hypothesis, of course. But Alice was born in Middlebury and her stepfather's (whom her mother married at around this time) last name was indeed McMahon. I couldn't find any other Alice McMahons who lived in Wyoming County, New York during this time. I know that Alice went by Alice Langenstein (her birth name) in 1900, but maybe she went by Alice McMahon back in 1895?

Anyway, it would be really interesting to find this certificate of indigence and/or lunacy for her in order to see if it lists her age and/or her birth year, but unfortunately I was unable to do so. I tried very hard but nevertheless unfortunately couldn't find it. Maybe it's not online. I don't know.

In regards to this old post, I think in hindsight that it was more likely that Alice and her family might have been financially needy after the death of her father Bernard Langenstein in 1894 and thus Alice, as the oldest child in the family, applied to the local government with this petition.

Park Fountain Heard (1882-1994) was verified by the GRG with the help of (based on information from a GRG source to me) Mississippi school census entries from 1892 and 1894, which confirmed the 1882 birth year that his 1900 US Census entry gave:

https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2025/03/30/former-worlds-oldest-living-man-titleholder-validated/

I see no reason to question this source's credibility. Mississippi school census entries indeed exist and are generally relatively reliable. They were used to help verify Delphia Welford's age in the past, for instance.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Park Fountain Heard (1882-1994) was verified by the GRG with the help of (based on information from a GRG source to me) Mississippi school census entries from 1892 and 1894, which confirmed the 1882 birth year that his 1900 US Census entry gave:

https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2025/03/30/former-worlds-oldest-living-man-titleholder-validated/

I see no reason to question this source's credibility. Mississippi school census entries indeed exist and are generally relatively reliable. They were used to help verify Delphia Welford's age in the past, for instance.

FWIW, Mr. Heard was the WOLM for the last seven months of his life.

His earliest available record, his 1892 Mississippi school census entry, is from when he was either 9 or 10.

Which supercentenarians have practiced calorie restriction? I can think of Walter Breuning (1896-2011), Alexander Imich (1903-2014), and, to a lesser extent, Jiroemon Kimura (1897-2013). Who else was there?

Posted by: @futurist

↑

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!

Leon Kaleta (1912-2022; second from left below) was overweight and died one month before his 110th birthday:

[img] [/img]

Alberto Andrade (1911-2021; right below) was even more overweight and died slightly less than two months before his 110th birthday:

[img] https://imagens.publico.pt/imagens.aspx/1599775?tp=UH&db=IMAGENS&type=GIF [/img]

Really quite impressive to live that long in spite of being overweight!

You can see Alberto Andrade (1911-2021; left below) here:

Lawrence Brooks (1909-2022) looks like he might have had some extra weight in his younger years:

A fairly insulting topic to be fair Futurist, (or disrespectful at best) calling or categorising people as being overweight.

We can only hope their loved ones or relatives are not reading this type of discussion thread - and apologise to any that are.

Posted by: @chrisr

↑

A fairly insulting topic to be fair Futurist, (or disrespectful at best) calling or categorising people as being overweight.

We can only hope their loved ones or relatives are not reading this type of discussion thread - and apologise to any that are.

Fair enough, I suppose, but again, as a fellow overweight person myself, I just admire it when overweight people defy the odds and live extremely long lives.