Posted by: @futurist

↑

I just want to share the fact that Michael DeSantis was actually 10 months younger than he claimed to be and was thus 109 rather than 110 years old at the time of his death. An apparently original birth record was found for him on FamilySearch.org which gives a March 26, 1900 birth date for him. (It gives his name as Mike DeSantis and his parents as Quirino/Querino DeSantis and Angela DeSantis and his birth place as Charleroi, Pennsylvania just like he claimed at the time of his death in December 2009). He claimed birth on May 26, 1899, but this does not appear to be possible since he had a sibling named Maggie DeSantis who was born in late June 1899. A gap of nine months in-between siblings' births is extraordinarily tight but theoretically possible, especially if the latter child was a prematurely-born child. Anyway, we have to go with what the evidence says, though theoretically I suppose that there is a chance that the evidence can have a typo in it--even an original birth record!

So, the Michael DeSantis case can now be considered debunked. Quite sad too since we lost one of the oldest verifiable male SCs who were born in 1899. Turns out that he was born in 1900 instead. Was also rather surprising since both his 1911 immigration record (age 12) and his WWI draft registration card (born on May 26, 1899) both clearly imply an 1899 birth year for him.

What do you guys think about this?

Did you find the actual record, or are you just basing this off of what the index says? I'm looking at it right now, and the index doesn't list his DOB, but the "event date", which appears to be when his birth was registered. It's not strange for someone's birth to be registered months late.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:HHVH-1YPZ
It seems like the actual image that the index is based on isn't properly attached, so I'm unable to find the actual record of his birth in the book. Maybe someone else can try to find it.

The fact that his sister's birth was registered only 9 months before him should let you know that their births likely weren't registered immediately after birth. 

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

I just want to share the fact that Michael DeSantis was actually 10 months younger than he claimed to be and was thus 109 rather than 110 years old at the time of his death. An apparently original birth record was found for him on FamilySearch.org which gives a March 26, 1900 birth date for him. (It gives his name as Mike DeSantis and his parents as Quirino/Querino DeSantis and Angela DeSantis and his birth place as Charleroi, Pennsylvania just like he claimed at the time of his death in December 2009). He claimed birth on May 26, 1899, but this does not appear to be possible since he had a sibling named Maggie DeSantis who was born in late June 1899. A gap of nine months in-between siblings' births is extraordinarily tight but theoretically possible, especially if the latter child was a prematurely-born child. Anyway, we have to go with what the evidence says, though theoretically I suppose that there is a chance that the evidence can have a typo in it--even an original birth record!

So, the Michael DeSantis case can now be considered debunked. Quite sad too since we lost one of the oldest verifiable male SCs who were born in 1899. Turns out that he was born in 1900 instead. Was also rather surprising since both his 1911 immigration record (age 12) and his WWI draft registration card (born on May 26, 1899) both clearly imply an 1899 birth year for him.

What do you guys think about this?

Did you find the actual record, or are you just basing this off of what the index says? I'm looking at it right now, and the index doesn't list his DOB, but the "event date", which appears to be when his birth was registered. It's not strange for someone's birth to be registered months late.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:HHVH-1YPZ
It seems like the actual image that the index is based on isn't properly attached, so I'm unable to find the actual record of his birth in the book. Maybe someone else can try to find it.

The fact that his sister's birth was registered only 9 months before him should let you know that their births likely weren't registered immediately after birth. 

For Michael (Mike), his birth date is explicitly listed as March 26, 1900 on the record itself. See here:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9T4-SSR5-V?i=331

It does not give a date for his birth being registered, though. There's a separate column for that on the right where it says RECORDED (for the birth) but it's left blank in his case.

For Mike's sister Maggie, it gives a birth date of June 30, 1899 and a birth registration (RECORDED) date of December 5, 1899:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9T4-SSRD-N?i=330

Let's say that Mike and Maggie were twins and that Maggie was born one month after Mike (unlikely, but not impossible for twins, since one twin can occasionally be born days or even weeks before the other twin). By that logic, wouldn't Mike have been registered along with Maggie on December 5, 1899 rather than several months later in 1900? This makes me believe that Maggie was indeed Mike's older sister.

Mike is registered on a later page after Maggie. They were not registered at the same time.

Again, I looked at the record itself in both Mike's and his sister Maggie's case before I actually made my posts about this topic here.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

I just want to share the fact that Michael DeSantis was actually 10 months younger than he claimed to be and was thus 109 rather than 110 years old at the time of his death. An apparently original birth record was found for him on FamilySearch.org which gives a March 26, 1900 birth date for him. (It gives his name as Mike DeSantis and his parents as Quirino/Querino DeSantis and Angela DeSantis and his birth place as Charleroi, Pennsylvania just like he claimed at the time of his death in December 2009). He claimed birth on May 26, 1899, but this does not appear to be possible since he had a sibling named Maggie DeSantis who was born in late June 1899. A gap of nine months in-between siblings' births is extraordinarily tight but theoretically possible, especially if the latter child was a prematurely-born child. Anyway, we have to go with what the evidence says, though theoretically I suppose that there is a chance that the evidence can have a typo in it--even an original birth record!

So, the Michael DeSantis case can now be considered debunked. Quite sad too since we lost one of the oldest verifiable male SCs who were born in 1899. Turns out that he was born in 1900 instead. Was also rather surprising since both his 1911 immigration record (age 12) and his WWI draft registration card (born on May 26, 1899) both clearly imply an 1899 birth year for him.

What do you guys think about this?

Did you find the actual record, or are you just basing this off of what the index says? I'm looking at it right now, and the index doesn't list his DOB, but the "event date", which appears to be when his birth was registered. It's not strange for someone's birth to be registered months late.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:HHVH-1YPZ
It seems like the actual image that the index is based on isn't properly attached, so I'm unable to find the actual record of his birth in the book. Maybe someone else can try to find it.

The fact that his sister's birth was registered only 9 months before him should let you know that their births likely weren't registered immediately after birth. 

For Michael (Mike), his birth date is explicitly listed as March 26, 1900 on the record itself. See here:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9T4-SSR5-V?i=331

It does not give a date for his birth being registered, though. There's a separate column for that on the right where it says RECORDED (for the birth) but it's left blank in his case.

For Mike's sister Maggie, it gives a birth date of June 30, 1899 and a birth registration (RECORDED) date of December 5, 1899:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9T4-SSRD-N?i=330

Let's say that Mike and Maggie were twins and that Maggie was born one month after Mike (unlikely, but not impossible for twins, since one twin can occasionally be born days or even weeks before the other twin). By that logic, wouldn't Mike have been registered along with Maggie on December 5, 1899 rather than several months later in 1900? This makes me believe that Maggie was indeed Mike's older sister.

Mike is registered on a later page after Maggie. They were not registered at the same time.

 

I'm still wondering how/why he could get his DOB wrong by 10 months from such an early age, then continue to claim the same wrong birthdate for the rest of his life. In many countries, parents are forced to pay a fee if they register their birth of their child late, so you sometimes see birth records supporting later dates than what other early-life records (such as baptism records) support, although there's no telling if that's what happened here.

On a slightly related note, did you see that I found a photo for John Jones (1899?-2010)? It was taken on his 110th birthday in 2009.

A likely explanation is that his birth might have been recorded the same day.

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

I just want to share the fact that Michael DeSantis was actually 10 months younger than he claimed to be and was thus 109 rather than 110 years old at the time of his death. An apparently original birth record was found for him on FamilySearch.org which gives a March 26, 1900 birth date for him. (It gives his name as Mike DeSantis and his parents as Quirino/Querino DeSantis and Angela DeSantis and his birth place as Charleroi, Pennsylvania just like he claimed at the time of his death in December 2009). He claimed birth on May 26, 1899, but this does not appear to be possible since he had a sibling named Maggie DeSantis who was born in late June 1899. A gap of nine months in-between siblings' births is extraordinarily tight but theoretically possible, especially if the latter child was a prematurely-born child. Anyway, we have to go with what the evidence says, though theoretically I suppose that there is a chance that the evidence can have a typo in it--even an original birth record!

So, the Michael DeSantis case can now be considered debunked. Quite sad too since we lost one of the oldest verifiable male SCs who were born in 1899. Turns out that he was born in 1900 instead. Was also rather surprising since both his 1911 immigration record (age 12) and his WWI draft registration card (born on May 26, 1899) both clearly imply an 1899 birth year for him.

What do you guys think about this?

Did you find the actual record, or are you just basing this off of what the index says? I'm looking at it right now, and the index doesn't list his DOB, but the "event date", which appears to be when his birth was registered. It's not strange for someone's birth to be registered months late.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:HHVH-1YPZ
It seems like the actual image that the index is based on isn't properly attached, so I'm unable to find the actual record of his birth in the book. Maybe someone else can try to find it.

The fact that his sister's birth was registered only 9 months before him should let you know that their births likely weren't registered immediately after birth. 

For Michael (Mike), his birth date is explicitly listed as March 26, 1900 on the record itself. See here:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9T4-SSR5-V?i=331

It does not give a date for his birth being registered, though. There's a separate column for that on the right where it says RECORDED (for the birth) but it's left blank in his case.

For Mike's sister Maggie, it gives a birth date of June 30, 1899 and a birth registration (RECORDED) date of December 5, 1899:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9T4-SSRD-N?i=330

Let's say that Mike and Maggie were twins and that Maggie was born one month after Mike (unlikely, but not impossible for twins, since one twin can occasionally be born days or even weeks before the other twin). By that logic, wouldn't Mike have been registered along with Maggie on December 5, 1899 rather than several months later in 1900? This makes me believe that Maggie was indeed Mike's older sister.

Mike is registered on a later page after Maggie. They were not registered at the same time.

 

I'm still wondering how/why he could get his DOB wrong by 10 months from such an early age, then continue to claim the same wrong birthdate for the rest of his life. In many countries, parents are forced to pay a fee if they register their birth of their child late, so you sometimes see birth records supporting later dates than what other early-life records (such as baptism records) support, although there's no telling if that's what happened here.

On a slightly related note, did you see that I found a photo for John Jones (1899?-2010)? It was taken on his 110th birthday in 2009.

-- attachment is not available --

 

Yes, I did. Do you know the specific date in 2009 that this photo was posted on Facebook? The reason that I'm asking about John Jones is because even though he claimed birth on February 6, 1899 late in his life, his 1900 US Census entry lists him as being born in October 1899, albeit under a different name (Timothy Jones). I do think that it's him, though, because in the 1920 US Census, he (20 years old, and named John Jones this time around) is listed ahead of an 18-year-old sister of his named Louise (or Louisa). So, there simply wasn't much room for him to be born at a different time, unless his family had one child in 1899, one child in 1900, and one more child in 1901. (Interestingly enough, his sister Louise/Louisa died in December 2007 at the age of 106.)

Speaking of John Jones, does a WWII draft registration card exist for him on Ancestry.com? I couldn't find any likely WWI draft registration cards for him on FamilySearch.org.

As for Michael DeSantis, I don't know what exactly the story behind his case here, unfortunately. If there is a baptismal record for him from 1899, well, we still need to find it, though one would still need to square it with the June 1899 birth of his sister Maggie. I still think that Michael and Maggie would have been jointly registered in December 1899 if they would have been twins but simply born one month apart (which, again, is unlikely but possible for twins in general). I think that in Michael's case the most likely explanation is that he really was born in early 1900 but that for some reason, sometime before 1911, his age got inflated by around a year, give or take a couple of months. This information should be posted on the 110 Club.

It's quite interesting: Michael's 1911 immigration record (returning to the US from Italy) and WWI draft registration card both support an 1899 birth year for him, and I mean clearly (age 12 in 1911 and May 26, 1899 in 1918). Yet somehow very slight age inflation for him still occurred between 1900 and 1911. Interestingly enough, Michael would have still been the oldest verifiable man in continental Europe at the time of his death had he stayed in Italy for the rest of his life after 1911 even with a March 1900 birth date, albeit not the oldest man in Europe as a whole due to British man Stanley Lucas being slightly older than he himself was.

Also, this is a bit off-topic, but do you think that there is any chance that I can get unbanned from the 110 Club, but in a more restricted capacity, where I can't send any PMs to any members, similar to here? BTW, I still don't know specifically which PMs there led to my banning.

Posted by: @930310

↑

A likely explanation is that his birth might have been recorded the same day.

Yes, that does seem likely. And it might also be likely that he was born prematurely due to the nine-month gap between his birth and the birth of his elder sister Maggie DeSantis.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

I just want to share the fact that Michael DeSantis was actually 10 months younger than he claimed to be and was thus 109 rather than 110 years old at the time of his death. An apparently original birth record was found for him on FamilySearch.org which gives a March 26, 1900 birth date for him. (It gives his name as Mike DeSantis and his parents as Quirino/Querino DeSantis and Angela DeSantis and his birth place as Charleroi, Pennsylvania just like he claimed at the time of his death in December 2009). He claimed birth on May 26, 1899, but this does not appear to be possible since he had a sibling named Maggie DeSantis who was born in late June 1899. A gap of nine months in-between siblings' births is extraordinarily tight but theoretically possible, especially if the latter child was a prematurely-born child. Anyway, we have to go with what the evidence says, though theoretically I suppose that there is a chance that the evidence can have a typo in it--even an original birth record!

So, the Michael DeSantis case can now be considered debunked. Quite sad too since we lost one of the oldest verifiable male SCs who were born in 1899. Turns out that he was born in 1900 instead. Was also rather surprising since both his 1911 immigration record (age 12) and his WWI draft registration card (born on May 26, 1899) both clearly imply an 1899 birth year for him.

What do you guys think about this?

Did you find the actual record, or are you just basing this off of what the index says? I'm looking at it right now, and the index doesn't list his DOB, but the "event date", which appears to be when his birth was registered. It's not strange for someone's birth to be registered months late.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:HHVH-1YPZ
It seems like the actual image that the index is based on isn't properly attached, so I'm unable to find the actual record of his birth in the book. Maybe someone else can try to find it.

The fact that his sister's birth was registered only 9 months before him should let you know that their births likely weren't registered immediately after birth. 

For Michael (Mike), his birth date is explicitly listed as March 26, 1900 on the record itself. See here:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9T4-SSR5-V?i=331

It does not give a date for his birth being registered, though. There's a separate column for that on the right where it says RECORDED (for the birth) but it's left blank in his case.

For Mike's sister Maggie, it gives a birth date of June 30, 1899 and a birth registration (RECORDED) date of December 5, 1899:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9T4-SSRD-N?i=330

Let's say that Mike and Maggie were twins and that Maggie was born one month after Mike (unlikely, but not impossible for twins, since one twin can occasionally be born days or even weeks before the other twin). By that logic, wouldn't Mike have been registered along with Maggie on December 5, 1899 rather than several months later in 1900? This makes me believe that Maggie was indeed Mike's older sister.

Mike is registered on a later page after Maggie. They were not registered at the same time.

 

I'm still wondering how/why he could get his DOB wrong by 10 months from such an early age, then continue to claim the same wrong birthdate for the rest of his life. In many countries, parents are forced to pay a fee if they register their birth of their child late, so you sometimes see birth records supporting later dates than what other early-life records (such as baptism records) support, although there's no telling if that's what happened here.

On a slightly related note, did you see that I found a photo for John Jones (1899?-2010)? It was taken on his 110th birthday in 2009.

-- attachment is not available --

 

Yes, I did. Do you know the specific date in 2009 that this photo was posted on Facebook? The reason that I'm asking about John Jones is because even though he claimed birth on February 6, 1899 late in his life, his 1900 US Census entry lists him as being born in October 1899, albeit under a different name (Timothy Jones). I do think that it's him, though, because in the 1920 US Census, he (20 years old, and named John Jones this time around) is listed ahead of an 18-year-old sister of his named Louise (or Louisa). So, there simply wasn't much room for him to be born at a different time, unless his family had one child in 1899, one child in 1900, and one more child in 1901. (Interestingly enough, his sister Louise/Louisa died in December 2007 at the age of 106.)

Speaking of John Jones, does a WWII draft registration card exist for him on Ancestry.com? I couldn't find any likely WWI draft registration cards for him on FamilySearch.org.

As for Michael DeSantis, I don't know what exactly the story behind his case here, unfortunately. If there is a baptismal record for him from 1899, well, we still need to find it, though one would still need to square it with the June 1899 birth of his sister Maggie. I still think that Michael and Maggie would have been jointly registered in December 1899 if they would have been twins but simply born one month apart (which, again, is unlikely but possible for twins in general). I think that in Michael's case the most likely explanation is that he really was born in early 1900 but that for some reason, sometime before 1911, his age got inflated by around a year, give or take a couple of months. This information should be posted on the 110 Club.

It's quite interesting: Michael's 1911 immigration record (returning to the US from Italy) and WWI draft registration card both support an 1899 birth year for him, and I mean clearly (age 12 in 1911 and May 26, 1899 in 1918). Yet somehow very slight age inflation for him still occurred between 1900 and 1911. Interestingly enough, Michael would have still been the oldest verifiable man in continental Europe at the time of his death had he stayed in Italy for the rest of his life after 1911 even with a March 1900 birth date, albeit not the oldest man in Europe as a whole due to British man Stanley Lucas being slightly older than he himself was.

Also, this is a bit off-topic, but do you think that there is any chance that I can get unbanned from the 110 Club, but in a more restricted capacity, where I can't send any PMs to any members, similar to here? BTW, I still don't know specifically which PMs there led to my banning.

 

The photo was posted on 31 August 2009, but it was probably taken on his claimed 110th birthday in February, since they don't say anything about his birthday in the post:

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

I just want to share the fact that Michael DeSantis was actually 10 months younger than he claimed to be and was thus 109 rather than 110 years old at the time of his death. An apparently original birth record was found for him on FamilySearch.org which gives a March 26, 1900 birth date for him. (It gives his name as Mike DeSantis and his parents as Quirino/Querino DeSantis and Angela DeSantis and his birth place as Charleroi, Pennsylvania just like he claimed at the time of his death in December 2009). He claimed birth on May 26, 1899, but this does not appear to be possible since he had a sibling named Maggie DeSantis who was born in late June 1899. A gap of nine months in-between siblings' births is extraordinarily tight but theoretically possible, especially if the latter child was a prematurely-born child. Anyway, we have to go with what the evidence says, though theoretically I suppose that there is a chance that the evidence can have a typo in it--even an original birth record!

So, the Michael DeSantis case can now be considered debunked. Quite sad too since we lost one of the oldest verifiable male SCs who were born in 1899. Turns out that he was born in 1900 instead. Was also rather surprising since both his 1911 immigration record (age 12) and his WWI draft registration card (born on May 26, 1899) both clearly imply an 1899 birth year for him.

What do you guys think about this?

Did you find the actual record, or are you just basing this off of what the index says? I'm looking at it right now, and the index doesn't list his DOB, but the "event date", which appears to be when his birth was registered. It's not strange for someone's birth to be registered months late.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:HHVH-1YPZ
It seems like the actual image that the index is based on isn't properly attached, so I'm unable to find the actual record of his birth in the book. Maybe someone else can try to find it.

The fact that his sister's birth was registered only 9 months before him should let you know that their births likely weren't registered immediately after birth. 

For Michael (Mike), his birth date is explicitly listed as March 26, 1900 on the record itself. See here:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9T4-SSR5-V?i=331

It does not give a date for his birth being registered, though. There's a separate column for that on the right where it says RECORDED (for the birth) but it's left blank in his case.

For Mike's sister Maggie, it gives a birth date of June 30, 1899 and a birth registration (RECORDED) date of December 5, 1899:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9T4-SSRD-N?i=330

Let's say that Mike and Maggie were twins and that Maggie was born one month after Mike (unlikely, but not impossible for twins, since one twin can occasionally be born days or even weeks before the other twin). By that logic, wouldn't Mike have been registered along with Maggie on December 5, 1899 rather than several months later in 1900? This makes me believe that Maggie was indeed Mike's older sister.

Mike is registered on a later page after Maggie. They were not registered at the same time.

 

I'm still wondering how/why he could get his DOB wrong by 10 months from such an early age, then continue to claim the same wrong birthdate for the rest of his life. In many countries, parents are forced to pay a fee if they register their birth of their child late, so you sometimes see birth records supporting later dates than what other early-life records (such as baptism records) support, although there's no telling if that's what happened here.

On a slightly related note, did you see that I found a photo for John Jones (1899?-2010)? It was taken on his 110th birthday in 2009.

-- attachment is not available --

 

Yes, I did. Do you know the specific date in 2009 that this photo was posted on Facebook? The reason that I'm asking about John Jones is because even though he claimed birth on February 6, 1899 late in his life, his 1900 US Census entry lists him as being born in October 1899, albeit under a different name (Timothy Jones). I do think that it's him, though, because in the 1920 US Census, he (20 years old, and named John Jones this time around) is listed ahead of an 18-year-old sister of his named Louise (or Louisa). So, there simply wasn't much room for him to be born at a different time, unless his family had one child in 1899, one child in 1900, and one more child in 1901. (Interestingly enough, his sister Louise/Louisa died in December 2007 at the age of 106.)

Speaking of John Jones, does a WWII draft registration card exist for him on Ancestry.com? I couldn't find any likely WWI draft registration cards for him on FamilySearch.org.

As for Michael DeSantis, I don't know what exactly the story behind his case here, unfortunately. If there is a baptismal record for him from 1899, well, we still need to find it, though one would still need to square it with the June 1899 birth of his sister Maggie. I still think that Michael and Maggie would have been jointly registered in December 1899 if they would have been twins but simply born one month apart (which, again, is unlikely but possible for twins in general). I think that in Michael's case the most likely explanation is that he really was born in early 1900 but that for some reason, sometime before 1911, his age got inflated by around a year, give or take a couple of months. This information should be posted on the 110 Club.

It's quite interesting: Michael's 1911 immigration record (returning to the US from Italy) and WWI draft registration card both support an 1899 birth year for him, and I mean clearly (age 12 in 1911 and May 26, 1899 in 1918). Yet somehow very slight age inflation for him still occurred between 1900 and 1911. Interestingly enough, Michael would have still been the oldest verifiable man in continental Europe at the time of his death had he stayed in Italy for the rest of his life after 1911 even with a March 1900 birth date, albeit not the oldest man in Europe as a whole due to British man Stanley Lucas being slightly older than he himself was.

Also, this is a bit off-topic, but do you think that there is any chance that I can get unbanned from the 110 Club, but in a more restricted capacity, where I can't send any PMs to any members, similar to here? BTW, I still don't know specifically which PMs there led to my banning.

 

The photo was posted on 31 August 2009, but it was probably taken on his claimed 110th birthday in February, since they don't say anything about his birthday in the post:

-- attachment is not available --

 

 

 

 

Thanks!

Also, have you found any likely WWII draft registration cards for John Jones on Ancestry.com?

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

I just want to share the fact that Michael DeSantis was actually 10 months younger than he claimed to be and was thus 109 rather than 110 years old at the time of his death. An apparently original birth record was found for him on FamilySearch.org which gives a March 26, 1900 birth date for him. (It gives his name as Mike DeSantis and his parents as Quirino/Querino DeSantis and Angela DeSantis and his birth place as Charleroi, Pennsylvania just like he claimed at the time of his death in December 2009). He claimed birth on May 26, 1899, but this does not appear to be possible since he had a sibling named Maggie DeSantis who was born in late June 1899. A gap of nine months in-between siblings' births is extraordinarily tight but theoretically possible, especially if the latter child was a prematurely-born child. Anyway, we have to go with what the evidence says, though theoretically I suppose that there is a chance that the evidence can have a typo in it--even an original birth record!

So, the Michael DeSantis case can now be considered debunked. Quite sad too since we lost one of the oldest verifiable male SCs who were born in 1899. Turns out that he was born in 1900 instead. Was also rather surprising since both his 1911 immigration record (age 12) and his WWI draft registration card (born on May 26, 1899) both clearly imply an 1899 birth year for him.

What do you guys think about this?

Did you find the actual record, or are you just basing this off of what the index says? I'm looking at it right now, and the index doesn't list his DOB, but the "event date", which appears to be when his birth was registered. It's not strange for someone's birth to be registered months late.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:HHVH-1YPZ
It seems like the actual image that the index is based on isn't properly attached, so I'm unable to find the actual record of his birth in the book. Maybe someone else can try to find it.

The fact that his sister's birth was registered only 9 months before him should let you know that their births likely weren't registered immediately after birth. 

For Michael (Mike), his birth date is explicitly listed as March 26, 1900 on the record itself. See here:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9T4-SSR5-V?i=331

It does not give a date for his birth being registered, though. There's a separate column for that on the right where it says RECORDED (for the birth) but it's left blank in his case.

For Mike's sister Maggie, it gives a birth date of June 30, 1899 and a birth registration (RECORDED) date of December 5, 1899:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9T4-SSRD-N?i=330

Let's say that Mike and Maggie were twins and that Maggie was born one month after Mike (unlikely, but not impossible for twins, since one twin can occasionally be born days or even weeks before the other twin). By that logic, wouldn't Mike have been registered along with Maggie on December 5, 1899 rather than several months later in 1900? This makes me believe that Maggie was indeed Mike's older sister.

Mike is registered on a later page after Maggie. They were not registered at the same time.

 

I'm still wondering how/why he could get his DOB wrong by 10 months from such an early age, then continue to claim the same wrong birthdate for the rest of his life. In many countries, parents are forced to pay a fee if they register their birth of their child late, so you sometimes see birth records supporting later dates than what other early-life records (such as baptism records) support, although there's no telling if that's what happened here.

On a slightly related note, did you see that I found a photo for John Jones (1899?-2010)? It was taken on his 110th birthday in 2009.

-- attachment is not available --

 

Yes, I did. Do you know the specific date in 2009 that this photo was posted on Facebook? The reason that I'm asking about John Jones is because even though he claimed birth on February 6, 1899 late in his life, his 1900 US Census entry lists him as being born in October 1899, albeit under a different name (Timothy Jones). I do think that it's him, though, because in the 1920 US Census, he (20 years old, and named John Jones this time around) is listed ahead of an 18-year-old sister of his named Louise (or Louisa). So, there simply wasn't much room for him to be born at a different time, unless his family had one child in 1899, one child in 1900, and one more child in 1901. (Interestingly enough, his sister Louise/Louisa died in December 2007 at the age of 106.)

Speaking of John Jones, does a WWII draft registration card exist for him on Ancestry.com? I couldn't find any likely WWI draft registration cards for him on FamilySearch.org.

As for Michael DeSantis, I don't know what exactly the story behind his case here, unfortunately. If there is a baptismal record for him from 1899, well, we still need to find it, though one would still need to square it with the June 1899 birth of his sister Maggie. I still think that Michael and Maggie would have been jointly registered in December 1899 if they would have been twins but simply born one month apart (which, again, is unlikely but possible for twins in general). I think that in Michael's case the most likely explanation is that he really was born in early 1900 but that for some reason, sometime before 1911, his age got inflated by around a year, give or take a couple of months. This information should be posted on the 110 Club.

It's quite interesting: Michael's 1911 immigration record (returning to the US from Italy) and WWI draft registration card both support an 1899 birth year for him, and I mean clearly (age 12 in 1911 and May 26, 1899 in 1918). Yet somehow very slight age inflation for him still occurred between 1900 and 1911. Interestingly enough, Michael would have still been the oldest verifiable man in continental Europe at the time of his death had he stayed in Italy for the rest of his life after 1911 even with a March 1900 birth date, albeit not the oldest man in Europe as a whole due to British man Stanley Lucas being slightly older than he himself was.

Also, this is a bit off-topic, but do you think that there is any chance that I can get unbanned from the 110 Club, but in a more restricted capacity, where I can't send any PMs to any members, similar to here? BTW, I still don't know specifically which PMs there led to my banning.

 

The photo was posted on 31 August 2009, but it was probably taken on his claimed 110th birthday in February, since they don't say anything about his birthday in the post:

-- attachment is not available --

 

 

 

 

Thanks!

Also, have you found any likely WWII draft registration cards for John Jones on Ancestry.com?

 

I tried searching a few years ago, but I never had any luck. I could try again.

@mendocino Yes, please do! AFAIK, his full name was John Henry Jones. He might have been born Timothy Jones but if so, he switched to John Henry Jones by 1920, apparently.

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

I just want to share the fact that Michael DeSantis was actually 10 months younger than he claimed to be and was thus 109 rather than 110 years old at the time of his death. An apparently original birth record was found for him on FamilySearch.org which gives a March 26, 1900 birth date for him. (It gives his name as Mike DeSantis and his parents as Quirino/Querino DeSantis and Angela DeSantis and his birth place as Charleroi, Pennsylvania just like he claimed at the time of his death in December 2009). He claimed birth on May 26, 1899, but this does not appear to be possible since he had a sibling named Maggie DeSantis who was born in late June 1899. A gap of nine months in-between siblings' births is extraordinarily tight but theoretically possible, especially if the latter child was a prematurely-born child. Anyway, we have to go with what the evidence says, though theoretically I suppose that there is a chance that the evidence can have a typo in it--even an original birth record!

So, the Michael DeSantis case can now be considered debunked. Quite sad too since we lost one of the oldest verifiable male SCs who were born in 1899. Turns out that he was born in 1900 instead. Was also rather surprising since both his 1911 immigration record (age 12) and his WWI draft registration card (born on May 26, 1899) both clearly imply an 1899 birth year for him.

What do you guys think about this?

Did you find the actual record, or are you just basing this off of what the index says? I'm looking at it right now, and the index doesn't list his DOB, but the "event date", which appears to be when his birth was registered. It's not strange for someone's birth to be registered months late.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:HHVH-1YPZ
It seems like the actual image that the index is based on isn't properly attached, so I'm unable to find the actual record of his birth in the book. Maybe someone else can try to find it.

The fact that his sister's birth was registered only 9 months before him should let you know that their births likely weren't registered immediately after birth. 

For Michael (Mike), his birth date is explicitly listed as March 26, 1900 on the record itself. See here:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9T4-SSR5-V?i=331

It does not give a date for his birth being registered, though. There's a separate column for that on the right where it says RECORDED (for the birth) but it's left blank in his case.

For Mike's sister Maggie, it gives a birth date of June 30, 1899 and a birth registration (RECORDED) date of December 5, 1899:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9T4-SSRD-N?i=330

Let's say that Mike and Maggie were twins and that Maggie was born one month after Mike (unlikely, but not impossible for twins, since one twin can occasionally be born days or even weeks before the other twin). By that logic, wouldn't Mike have been registered along with Maggie on December 5, 1899 rather than several months later in 1900? This makes me believe that Maggie was indeed Mike's older sister.

Mike is registered on a later page after Maggie. They were not registered at the same time.

 

I'm still wondering how/why he could get his DOB wrong by 10 months from such an early age, then continue to claim the same wrong birthdate for the rest of his life. In many countries, parents are forced to pay a fee if they register their birth of their child late, so you sometimes see birth records supporting later dates than what other early-life records (such as baptism records) support, although there's no telling if that's what happened here.

On a slightly related note, did you see that I found a photo for John Jones (1899?-2010)? It was taken on his 110th birthday in 2009.

-- attachment is not available --

 

Yes, I did. Do you know the specific date in 2009 that this photo was posted on Facebook? The reason that I'm asking about John Jones is because even though he claimed birth on February 6, 1899 late in his life, his 1900 US Census entry lists him as being born in October 1899, albeit under a different name (Timothy Jones). I do think that it's him, though, because in the 1920 US Census, he (20 years old, and named John Jones this time around) is listed ahead of an 18-year-old sister of his named Louise (or Louisa). So, there simply wasn't much room for him to be born at a different time, unless his family had one child in 1899, one child in 1900, and one more child in 1901. (Interestingly enough, his sister Louise/Louisa died in December 2007 at the age of 106.)

Speaking of John Jones, does a WWII draft registration card exist for him on Ancestry.com? I couldn't find any likely WWI draft registration cards for him on FamilySearch.org.

As for Michael DeSantis, I don't know what exactly the story behind his case here, unfortunately. If there is a baptismal record for him from 1899, well, we still need to find it, though one would still need to square it with the June 1899 birth of his sister Maggie. I still think that Michael and Maggie would have been jointly registered in December 1899 if they would have been twins but simply born one month apart (which, again, is unlikely but possible for twins in general). I think that in Michael's case the most likely explanation is that he really was born in early 1900 but that for some reason, sometime before 1911, his age got inflated by around a year, give or take a couple of months. This information should be posted on the 110 Club.

It's quite interesting: Michael's 1911 immigration record (returning to the US from Italy) and WWI draft registration card both support an 1899 birth year for him, and I mean clearly (age 12 in 1911 and May 26, 1899 in 1918). Yet somehow very slight age inflation for him still occurred between 1900 and 1911. Interestingly enough, Michael would have still been the oldest verifiable man in continental Europe at the time of his death had he stayed in Italy for the rest of his life after 1911 even with a March 1900 birth date, albeit not the oldest man in Europe as a whole due to British man Stanley Lucas being slightly older than he himself was.

Also, this is a bit off-topic, but do you think that there is any chance that I can get unbanned from the 110 Club, but in a more restricted capacity, where I can't send any PMs to any members, similar to here? BTW, I still don't know specifically which PMs there led to my banning.

 

The photo was posted on 31 August 2009, but it was probably taken on his claimed 110th birthday in February, since they don't say anything about his birthday in the post:

-- attachment is not available --

 

 

 

 

Thanks!

Also, have you found any likely WWII draft registration cards for John Jones on Ancestry.com?

 

I tried searching a few years ago, but I never had any luck. I could try again.

 

FWIW, there is a WWII draft registration card for a Johnnie Jones who was born on December 31, 1900 in Monticello, Florida and who was living in Tampa in the early 1940s. That might be our John Jones. His relative is listed as David Jones. The problem, of course, is that when I did genealogical research, it appears that the John and David Jones who lived in Monticello, Florida do not appear to have been close relatives. Of course, this wouldn't necessarily rule out them being close, but it does mean that this match isn't 100% guaranteed.

@Mendocino Other than Michael DeSantis, do you know which SCs' WWI and/or WWII draft registration cards gave a birth date for them that was wrong?

Also, as a side question, which name(s) is Moon Fun Chin listed on the records that you found for him, Mendocino? I can't find these records on FamilySearch.org.

Laurence Thompson's (1886/1887-1998) Hawaii 1890 census entry has been found (Hawaii was a separate country back then): https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:C2HD-QPMM It implies an 1886 birth year for him even though he himself had always claimed 1887. FamilySearch.org user Fish7966 found this entry.

BTW, I found a family with extreme longevity who died in the 19th century: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/40969946/martin-kellogg Martin Kellogg (1786-1892) died at age 105 (almost 106), his sister Ruth died at age 99 (claimed 102), his brother Thomas (1788-1882) died at age 94, and his father Martin Sr. died at age 92. The children at least are fully verifiable. I'll have to double-check on their father.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Laurence Thompson's (1886/1887-1998) Hawaii 1890 census entry has been found (Hawaii was a separate country back then): https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:C2HD-QPMM It implies an 1886 birth year for him even though he himself had always claimed 1887. FamilySearch.org user Fish7966 found this entry.

FWIW, this same FamilySearch.org user, Fish for short, also found Michael DeSantis's 1900 birth record, which allowed his case to be debunked, with him only being 109 rather than 110 years old (like he claimed) at the time of his death in December 2009.

@Mendocino Is this Santos Cruz Flores's baptismal record? https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGSH-R2Q5 If so, then there are a bunch of other records for him: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/G2P7-J6K

Posted by: @futurist

↑

@Mendocino Is this Santos Cruz Flores's baptismal record? https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGSH-R2Q5 If so, then there are a bunch of other records for him: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/G2P7-J6K

FamilySearch.org user Fish deserves credit for most or all of these discoveries, IIRC.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

@Mendocino Is this Santos Cruz Flores's baptismal record? https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGSH-R2Q5 If so, then there are a bunch of other records for him: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/G2P7-J6K

I still haven't seen any actual reports on him yet, so I don't know what information this claim is based on.

Edit: I remember seeing this claim back in 2021, but I didn't think he seemed very plausible. From the posts I've seen, he lives in Quintana Roo, Mexico, which is very far away from Nuevo Leon (where the Santos Cruz Flores in the birth record was born). This picture of him was posted on his 112th birthday in 2021:

@futurist does it support his age? I cant access it

Posted by: @aquanaut

↑

@futurist does it support his age? I cant access it

I believe that it does, Yes. Apparently you might need to create a free FamilySearch.org account before you would be able to access it. So, if you're able to do so, do that and then try accessing it again.

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

@Mendocino Is this Santos Cruz Flores's baptismal record? https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGSH-R2Q5 If so, then there are a bunch of other records for him: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/G2P7-J6K

I still haven't seen any actual reports on him yet, so I don't know what information this claim is based on.

Edit: I remember seeing this claim back in 2021, but I didn't think he seemed very plausible. From the posts I've seen, he lives in Quintana Roo, Mexico, which is very far away from Nuevo Leon (where the Santos Cruz Flores in the birth record was born). This picture of him was posted on his 112th birthday in 2021:

-- attachment is not available --

So, we first need more information about him to see if these documents are indeed for him and not for someone else with the same name.

@Mendocino I have found 1898, 1899, and 1900 school census entries for Leora Franklin Sparrow (1886-1887). They all give a December 16, 1886 birth date for her, thus trumping the December 1887 on her 1900 US Census entry. (Interestingly enough, Leora's elder brother Ezra used to be known as Edgar. But Yes, I'm 100% sure that it's the right family because the siblings' names and birth dates all match, as does their father's name.)

1898:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3Z2-Y3F4?i=104&cat=824520

1899:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3Z2-YQZ2?i=276&cat=824520

1900:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3Z2-Y92G?i=384&cat=824520

The first two documents here are clearly from before the 1900 US Census.

These documents are all from Vols. 1-4, 1898-1911 here:

https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/824520?availability=Family%20History%20Library

I would highly advise for these documents to be posted on the 110 Club and for these documents to be sent to both the GRG and LQ. I myself can *eventually* do the latter if necessary.

But Yeah, her 1900 US Census entry was in error. And now we can prove it and verify her as age 110 (almost age 111)!

Posted by: @futurist

↑

@Mendocino I have found 1898, 1899, and 1900 school census entries for Leora Franklin Sparrow (1886-1887). They all give a December 16, 1886 birth date for her, thus trumping the December 1887 on her 1900 US Census entry. (Interestingly enough, Leora's elder brother Ezra used to be known as Edgar. But Yes, I'm 100% sure that it's the right family because the siblings' names and birth dates all match, as does their father's name.)

1898:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3Z2-Y3F4?i=104&cat=824520

1899:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3Z2-YQZ2?i=276&cat=824520

1900:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3Z2-Y92G?i=384&cat=824520

The first two documents here are clearly from before the 1900 US Census.

These documents are all from Vols. 1-4, 1898-1911 here:

https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/824520?availability=Family%20History%20Library

I would highly advise for these documents to be posted on the 110 Club and for these documents to be sent to both the GRG and LQ. I myself can *eventually* do the latter if necessary.

But Yeah, her 1900 US Census entry was in error. And now we can prove it and verify her as age 110 (almost age 111)!

FWIW, there could be additional school census records for her from 1901 onward in that very same link/source. Leora is consistently listed as living in School District #26. I myself can try finding these additional school census records for her later, but they're not crucial since they're from after the 1900 US Census.

Leora Franklin Sparrow can now be considered a *high-level verified* SC case since we now have documentation from within the 20-year-window that gives her full date of birth.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

@Mendocino I have found 1898, 1899, and 1900 school census entries for Leora Franklin Sparrow (1886-1887). They all give a December 16, 1886 birth date for her, thus trumping the December 1887 on her 1900 US Census entry. (Interestingly enough, Leora's elder brother Ezra used to be known as Edgar. But Yes, I'm 100% sure that it's the right family because the siblings' names and birth dates all match, as does their father's name.)

1898:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3Z2-Y3F4?i=104&cat=824520

1899:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3Z2-YQZ2?i=276&cat=824520

1900:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3Z2-Y92G?i=384&cat=824520

The first two documents here are clearly from before the 1900 US Census.

These documents are all from Vols. 1-4, 1898-1911 here:

https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/824520?availability=Family%20History%20Library

I would highly advise for these documents to be posted on the 110 Club and for these documents to be sent to both the GRG and LQ. I myself can *eventually* do the latter if necessary.

But Yeah, her 1900 US Census entry was in error. And now we can prove it and verify her as age 110 (almost age 111)!

FWIW, there could be additional school census records for her from 1901 onward in that very same link/source. Leora is consistently listed as living in School District #26. I myself can try finding these additional school census records for her later, but they're not crucial since they're from after the 1900 US Census.

Leora Franklin Sparrow can now be considered a *high-level verified* SC case since we now have documentation from within the 20-year-window that gives her full date of birth.

 

Do you think you could find school census records for Susie Gibson? Wondering if they say 1889 or 1890.

Posted by: @sailor-haumea

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

@Mendocino I have found 1898, 1899, and 1900 school census entries for Leora Franklin Sparrow (1886-1887). They all give a December 16, 1886 birth date for her, thus trumping the December 1887 on her 1900 US Census entry. (Interestingly enough, Leora's elder brother Ezra used to be known as Edgar. But Yes, I'm 100% sure that it's the right family because the siblings' names and birth dates all match, as does their father's name.)

1898:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3Z2-Y3F4?i=104&cat=824520

1899:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3Z2-YQZ2?i=276&cat=824520

1900:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3Z2-Y92G?i=384&cat=824520

The first two documents here are clearly from before the 1900 US Census.

These documents are all from Vols. 1-4, 1898-1911 here:

https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/824520?availability=Family%20History%20Library

I would highly advise for these documents to be posted on the 110 Club and for these documents to be sent to both the GRG and LQ. I myself can *eventually* do the latter if necessary.

But Yeah, her 1900 US Census entry was in error. And now we can prove it and verify her as age 110 (almost age 111)!

FWIW, there could be additional school census records for her from 1901 onward in that very same link/source. Leora is consistently listed as living in School District #26. I myself can try finding these additional school census records for her later, but they're not crucial since they're from after the 1900 US Census.

Leora Franklin Sparrow can now be considered a *high-level verified* SC case since we now have documentation from within the 20-year-window that gives her full date of birth.

 

Do you think you could find school census records for Susie Gibson? Wondering if they say 1889 or 1890.

 

I actually did previously tried looking for school records for her but unfortunately couldn't find anything. However, I did find another piece of evidence that suggests that 1890 is more likely to be correct than 1889 is. Susie had an elder sister named Aileen who was born in December 1888: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/112354911/aileen-p-ross This is confirmed by both the 1900 US Census and by what Aileen herself had claimed late in her life. So, for Susie to have been born in October 1889 would have been possible but difficult since this would have meant only a 10-month age gap between her and Aileen. Again, it is theoretically possible since Michael DeSantis was apparently born just nine months after his elder sister Maggie was (for both of whom we have original birth records; did you hear about Michael DeSantis being debunked by FamilySearch.org user Fish as age 109 rather than age 110, BTW? I previously posted about this in this very thread). However, having a 10-month age gap between (full) siblings is probably significantly less likely than having a 22-month age gap between (full) siblings.

BTW, if you're curious, school census records don't always give a full date of birth or even a year of birth. For instance, Mississippi's (such as the ones for Delphia Welford or Charles Edward Graves) simply provide an age. But we got really lucky with the school census records for Leora Franklin Sparrow's Kentucky country.

@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.

If there are any other cases that you want me to take a look at, Sailor, please let me know right here, in this very thread.