Old Tree

We know because they were living with her in the years after and knew her well enough to not be fooled. They were wealthy but they disappear from the photographic record a couple of years before the switch. they were keeping low during the illness. After 1934 they kept a low profile too. they were photographed with the in-laws in Paris. In 1938 the business closed and then war broke out. They were not so prominent after that. People knew of them but there is no reason to think anyone would have spotted the switch. It is not certain that there was a wake where the body would be visible, but if it was people could easily be fooled. They looked so alike and there were stories of the mother being mistaken for the daughter. After a few years of TB infection how recognisable would someone be? They would dress the mother as the daughter and Yvonne could pose as her mother wearing a veil. It is amazing how easily people are fooled if they are not looking to question the circumstances. Certainly it is remarkable that they did this and got away with it, but the evidence is very clear that she did and there is no showstopper to say it could not have happened.

Actually it is clear that Yvonne's father and husband knew, as did her in-laws and probably her brother. They kept it from their children because they did not want to burden them with the lies. It is likely that her son eventually discovered the truth with his wife and one or two others. Why would they reveal it to anyone else? There could be serious trouble for all of them if they did.

The recordings of her telling the Van Gogh story go back to 1986 when she was supposed to be 111, and she already told the story like she had been repeating it for a while. That was more than ten years before she died. In 1993 she was subjected to cognitive tests and she performed very well. It was all written up in a paper with brain scans and everything. The ironic part is that the validators talked about her amazing her memory was and how it proved her authenticity. At they time it was much more difficult to check the historic details than it is now with online resources, but they should have seen what was going on. Of course I agree that the DNA tests would be helpful. They aren't even buried under ground, just placed in a tomb, so exhumation to take a biosample would be very easy. If you had the time and inclination to study all the details including listening to the tapes I think you would agree with us, but there is no small subset of the evidence that is immediately decisive. A DNA test would provide that and end the debate. This is not about being pro/anti French or Russian. We are just doing something that interested us. We are not trying to argue with you or anyone else here. we are just responding to your points. They would seem very reasonable to you or anyone unfamiliar with all the evidence we have gathered, but having studied her case in detail we know much more about it and can respond.

I agree. Her story of Van Gogh as heard on her recorded interviews was that she was introduced to him as his wife. In reality she was 15 when he died. For the Eiffel tower she said that she saw it being built on her honeymoon, but again it was completed 7 years earlier. Her stories of times before Yvonne was born never quite work out as they should. For some reason the validators were completely blind to her obvious errors. There were many more and they always made more sense if you think of her as Yvonne instead of Jeanne.

Here are a few points about that paper. They say that the inheritance tax motive has no basis because jeanne's father had already passed on his property. Obviously Jeanne would still have to pay tax on it if she died so this rebutal has no point. They claim Zak says that her case was mathematically impossible. He didn't say anything remotely like that. They then calculate a probability which actually makes her look less likely than Zak computed. They cite her mention of the maid Marthe Fousson as a point in her favour, but fail to point out that she said Fousson had walked her to school. As Zak noted, Fousson was younger than Jeanne and could only have done this for Yvonne. They mention a lot of other memories from her testimony as strong evidence, but all of it would have been well known to her daughter. In another paragraph they say that Zak's argument that she kept out of sight in 1934 is negated by Zak saying that she was under scrutiny at age 110. They claim that after the funeral Yvonne Calment living with her father Fernand would be an incestuous relationship, despite them living at a two apartment address where Yvonne could have lived apart with her husband Joseph. In contrast that see nothing unusual about Joseph and Mme Calment living together in the same apartment for twenty years after Fernand's death. They claim that a photo of Yvonne in Leysin shows her being treated for tuberculosis despite her looking very well while another photo shows Jeanne looking ill. Indeed there has since been testimony from the family of the director of the sanatorium who confirmed that it was Jeanne who was treated for TB there. Yvonne had been ill three years earlier in 1928 but was seen in several photos in public looking well from 1929 to 1931. They use the term "conspiracy" repeatedly to discredit Zak's hypothesis. This is not how you do science. They cite only one Zak paper and its early researchgate version despite tw papers having been published in peer reviewed journal by that time. A lot of important evidence such as the signature change is not even mentioned despite having been presented well before this paper was published. They declare no conflict of interest despite having built entire careers around her case.

Jeanne calment was 57 when her signature changed within the space of a year. It had been stable for at least the previous 8 years. The tail on the t vanishes, but also the loop on the J becomes rounder. These are unusual changes. Also she writes out her full name before the signature settles down to something stable for the next 50 years. Her family was well off with property and business. She had important financial and legal documents to sign in a country obsessed with bureaucracy. What we see here could be just a small preserved sample of what she had to sign. Her signature evolved around the time of her marriage, but the idea that she just decided to change her signature at this later point does not add up. On its own this evidence would be revealing but not completely conclusive. In addition you have to look at the other evidence, especially from her testimony. These links give quick summaries for some of what is in the books https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/calmentvalidation/so-what-actually-happened-t26.html https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/calmentvalidation/summary-of-the-latest-evidence-for-the-jeanne-calm-t27.html Looking back through this thread I see that a lot of the FUD about Zak has been repeated. All of it comes from Robert Young and the original validators who have huge personal investments and conflict of interest in this case. They have made up multiple conspiracy theories about Zak while claiming that his hypothesis is a conspiracy theory. There is no evidence for either of their inconsistent claims. Young even claims that Zak denied the moon landings but he wont show his evidence. By the way it is also not true that Zak thinks all the top supercentenarians are fake as Young likes to say on forums where nobody dares to contradict him.. Zak actually improved the case for Knauss by finding her 1890 census record and other evidence after Young had failed to find it. However there have been many cases where longevity records have been debunked after appearing in the Guinness books, and there are dozens of absurd claims for people living over 125. Any approach to validation of extreme longevity should be "sceptical but not cynical" You have to think up all the ways that it could be fake and then rule them out. If the evidence stacks up in their favour they can be accepted. The GRG and other validation groups do not work that way, at least for up to 122 years. Tanaka and Randon are recent cases. No detailed reports on their validation study have yet been published. As a fan you can consider them innocent until proving guilty, but if you want to rely on records for statistical purposes before the evidence has been presented and reviewed you may get distorted conclusions, as demonstrated by past experiences.

You are right about the DNA test, but I dont think the French authorities want to expose this. In the link it explains that they switched because they were hiding their tuberculosis. They started faking signatures so when Jeanne died they were caught out and had to pretend it was Yvonne who died. The inheritance was probably not a big part of the motivation but it was there. Who knows what else was going on. I get that it is an unusual and surprising story, but so is living to about 7 years older than anyone had previously. Lots of other longevity records from Guinness have been debunked, and some were even identity switches too. The FUD about the Kremlin is straight from the head of Robert Young, so not true at all. Young makes up tons of stuff against Zak to discredit him and then bans him from the 110 club so he cant answer back. You say he is not a researcher but Zak has a PhD unlike Young. That is irrelevant anyway. No special expertise of any kind is needed because it is all just family history. It is the evidence presented that counts, not who the researchers are.