World's Oldest

[Lafaucheuse 4,043]

55 minutes ago, Old Tree said:

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

Honestly, she doesn’t completely change her signature. Only small changes and not conclusive one at all. It doesn’t prove anything in my opinion : France is, as you say a country obsessed with bureaucraty and signature doesn’t mean much here. I, for exemple, can’t have the Same signature twice and I changed it more than 3 or 4 times without anyone noticing or telling me nothing about it 

[YoungWillz 21,024]

And now, an intermission, for some music:

 

 

[Lafaucheuse 4,043]

Does someone ever tried to contact Jean Marie Robine, Michel Allard Francois Hermann or Bernard Jeune rather than Dr. Young ? They're the experts who have validated Calment's age when she was alive and who refuted the russian claims in 2019

 

edit : here is their full article (for free) claiming she was really 122 after the russian claims appeared in 2019

[gcreptile 10,963]

Today, it's 56 days until somebody points out that Yasue Okai is 114 years and 58 days old.

[Old Tree 7]

50 minutes ago, Lafaucheuse said:

Does someone ever tried to contact Jean Marie Robine, Michel Allard Francois Hermann or Bernard Jeune rather than Dr. Young ? They're the experts who have validated Calment's age when she was alive and who refuted the russian claims in 2019

 

edit : here is their full article (for free) claiming she was really 122 after the russian claims appeared in 2019

 

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.
 

[nzak 21]

For Robine Calment's record is much more important than for Young. He validated her when he was an unknown demographer, and since then he suddenly became a very well-known prominent scientist, founder of the IDL, etc.  Without Calment, he wouldn't have built his career. And he invested too much to defend it. It is very easy to debunk his claims, but so far, he got away with it. For those who do not have time to look into evidence this is a matter of belief. You can choose the experts and agree with their conclusion. Or you can say it can't be resolved without the DNA test. But the truth still exists. Her biography was studied in finest possible details and there is no reasonable doubt about her identity. Those who would like to check can easily do that. 

 

Signature change alone doesn't prove that she was Yvonne, but it is an important part of the story. A lot of interesting things happened in early 1930s: Jeanne was secretly treated for tuberculosis in Switzerland (confirmed by photographic evidence and by the son of her doctor) and their notary in Arles retired. Then she bought the villa in Paradou in February 1933 with the help of this new notary, new Identity Card and new signature. This was a year prior to the official death of her daughter. Previous 10 years her signature always had the long tail after the final t, and after this new ID card and new deal with the new notary, her signature never again had this tail after the final t. There are also other permanent changes after this sudden signature switch.

[Lafaucheuse 4,043]

1 hour ago, nzak said:

For Robine Calment's record is much more important than for Young. He validated her when he was an unknown demographer, and since then he suddenly became a very well-known prominent scientist, founder of the IDL, etc.  Without Calment, he wouldn't have built his career. And he invested too much to defend it. It is very easy to debunk his claims, but so far, he got away with it. For those who do not have time to look into evidence this is a matter of belief. You can choose the experts and agree with their conclusion. Or you can say it can't be resolved without the DNA test. But the truth still exists. Her biography was studied in finest possible details and there is no reasonable doubt about her identity. Those who would like to check can easily do that. 

 

Signature change alone doesn't prove that she was Yvonne, but it is an important part of the story. A lot of interesting things happened in early 1930s: Jeanne was secretly treated for tuberculosis in Switzerland (confirmed by photographic evidence and by the son of her doctor) and their notary in Arles retired. Then she bought the villa in Paradou in February 1933 with the help of this new notary, new Identity Card and new signature. This was a year prior to the official death of her daughter. Previous 10 years her signature always had the long tail after the final t, and after this new ID card and new deal with the new notary, her signature never again had this tail after the final t. There are also other permanent changes after this sudden signature switch.

So are you saying you believe in the veracity of her age or the contrary ? Don’t understand

[nzak 21]

It is not a matter of belief, her biography was reconstructed, and it is obvious that Madame Calment was Yvonne who assumed identity of her mother Jeanne since 1933.

[DaDeathGuy 202]

Two strange things about this case: She claimed she met Van Gogh and even had a description of him. How is that possible when he was an unknown and a loser at the time? How would she even recall that it was him?

She also said she saw the Eiffel Tower being built even though she didn't grow up in Paris. Both those things reek of wanting media attention and there's too many holes in the stories.

[nzak 21]

It is important to use the audio and videotapes and not what journalists wrote about her. With Van Gogh her main problem was that she said she was introduced to him by her husband as his wife, while in reality Jeanne married 7 years later. Jeanne would know better how to make up this story, but her daughter confused the dates and ages. With the tower she said she visited it for her honeymoon and that it was built only up to the first floor at that time - again a mistake with dates. 

 

There are not two but 57 "strange" things about this case, we have reviewed them all and also did the Bayesian analysis.

[Old Tree 7]

28 minutes ago, DaDeathGuy said:

Two strange things about this case: She claimed she met Van Gogh and even had a description of him. How is that possible when he was an unknown and a loser at the time? How would she even recall that it was him?

She also said she saw the Eiffel Tower being built even though she didn't grow up in Paris. Both those things reek of wanting media attention and there's too many holes in the stories.

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.

[Lafaucheuse 4,043]

48 minutes ago, Old Tree said:

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.

but you're talking of someone who was supposed to be 118-120 at that time : my own great grandmother who was 102 when she died, even if  still mentally sharp, confused a lot of things. She talked about her mother, her daughter (who was dead) as if they were alive, mixing up dates too and sometimes referring as her late husband as her brother. It's not that uncommon to have an old person mixing informations, making mistakes about their life, dates and everything.

Also, you nitpicking on details that she, 110 years after the event occurs, should remember vividly and without any mistake. I think it's pretty obvious to say that 100 years later, no one can still be expected to remember a detail of its own history with so much accuracy. I myself have trouble remembering what I ate yesterday so if I ever become a supercentenarian, don't expect me to give accurate details about my youth.

 

Honestly, the debate could go on for years : every small detail can be interpreted either in favour of her case or in disfavour of it. I'm really jealous of those who have a strong opinion on the subject, I myself never questioned the veracity of it until recently and as time goes by, I'm more and more unsure of what I believe or not. I have no opinion on it but it's driving me crazy to not know and I just hope that one day, someone will exhume both bodies and come up with a finale answer. 

 

to sum-up : are you pro-french or pro-russian  ? 

 

End of my participation on this case. 

[nzak 21]

Her mind was very clear and mistakes she made were always going in one direction: she confused herself with her own daughter, then she usually corrected herself or was corrected by the interviewer. DNA test would be fine, but for this case there is so much evidence in favor of the identity switch that those who are pro-truth can find it out without exhuming the bodies. The only problem is that people are too lazy to study evidence and prefer to rely on expert opinions, or just believe in what they prefer to believe.

[Lafaucheuse 4,043]

18 minutes ago, nzak said:

Her mind was very clear and mistakes she made were always going in one direction: she confused herself with her own daughter, then she usually corrected herself or was corrected by the interviewer. DNA test would be fine, but for this case there is so much evidence in favor of the identity switch that those who are pro-truth can find it out without exhuming the bodies. The only problem is that people are too lazy to study evidence and prefer to rely on expert opinions, or just believe in what they prefer to believe.

do you imagine switching identity for more than 60 years with one of your parent without anyone noticing or telling the truth ? bullshit imo

[Old Tree 7]

18 minutes ago, Lafaucheuse said:

but you're talking of someone who was supposed to be 118-120 at that time : my own great grandmother who was 102 when she died, even if  still mentally sharp, confused a lot of things. She talked about her mother, her daughter (who was dead) as if they were alive, mixing up dates too and sometimes referring as her late husband as her brother. It's not that uncommon to have an old person mixing informations, making mistakes about their life, dates and everything.

Also, you nitpicking on details that she, 110 years after the event occurs, should remember vividly and without any mistake. I think it's pretty obvious to say that 100 years later, no one can still be expected to remember a detail of its own history with so much accuracy. I myself have trouble remembering what I ate yesterday so if I ever become a supercentenarian, don't expect me to give accurate details about my youth.

 

Honestly, the debate could go on for years : every small detail can be interpreted either in favour of her case or in disfavour of it. I'm really jealous of those who have a strong opinion on the subject, I myself never questioned the veracity of it until recently and as time goes by, I'm more and more unsure of what I believe or not. I have no opinion on it but it's driving me crazy to not know and I just hope that one day, someone will exhume both bodies and come up with a finale answer. 

 

to sum-up : are you pro-french or pro-russian  ? 

 

End of my participation on this case. 

 

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. 

[Old Tree 7]

7 minutes ago, Lafaucheuse said:

do you imagine switching identity for more than 60 years with one of your parent without anyone noticing or telling the truth ? bullshit imo

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.

[Lafaucheuse 4,043]

25 minutes ago, Old Tree said:

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.

Have you proofs to support that or is it just your imagination ? And What do you make of all the people Who knew personnally Yvonne and Jeanne (they were wealthy and famous people in their town), and the ones Who came to see Yvonne’s wake ceremony (is it how it’s called ? Veillée funèbre I meant)

[Old Tree 7]

14 minutes ago, Lafaucheuse said:

Have you proofs to support that or is it just your imagination ? And What do you make of all the people Who knew personnally Yvonne and Jeanne (they were wealthy and famous people in their town), and the ones Who came to see Yvonne’s wake ceremony (is it how it’s called ? Veillée funèbre I meant)

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.

[Lafaucheuse 4,043]

2 minutes ago, Old Tree said:

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.

There is no proof her father and husband knew anything at all.

and for the other part, saying that they prepared the switch back to a few years before Yvonne death is completely absurd.

no intangible proof has been given to unvalidate her age. I have doubt myself sometimes but the two main questions remain : why would they do such a thing ? And how is it possible that no one had noticed and tell. 

[Lafaucheuse 4,043]

You seem so sure of your conclusion that it doesn’t open any discussion I fear, just like in the case of Dr Young. Anyway  as I said, facts can be interpretated in both ways but I think no one is impartial enough to investigate on it unfortunately. 

[TQR 14,384]

8 hours ago, Lafaucheuse said:

I think no one is impartial enough to investigate on it unfortunately. 

I couldn’t care a balls either way so I’ll do the investigation.

 

1) Signatures change. Not everyone can reproduce their own perfectly over time. I certainly can’t. Not perfectly.

 

2) This photo of her 121st birthday. If this was Yvonne, she’d (only) be 97. No chance. This looks like something you’d find in a pyramid.


3) What’s really the point in lying so much, and for this long, if indeed this was all false? Why does it matter so much? What’s the motivation, particularly 25 years on, to keep it up?

 

To conclude my impartial investigation: Jeanne was Jeanne and not Yvonne.

 

Oh, and 4) If you disagree with any of this, please refer to the first five words of my post.

[nzak 21]

8 hours ago, Lafaucheuse said:

You seem so sure of your conclusion that it doesn’t open any discussion I fear, just like in the case of Dr Young. Anyway as I said, facts can be interpretated in both ways but I think no one is impartial enough to investigate on it unfortunately. 

Unlike Young's, our conclusion is based on real research, and unlike Young we don't ban and spread lies about those who ask questions, but answer them. Anyone can read our work (search "Jeanne Calment" on amazon from example) and make his own conclusions. But this requires more effort than just arguing that it is impossible to switch identity or that it is impossible to prove anything or get any reasonable conclusion without the DNA test.

[nzak 21]

7 minutes ago, TQR said:

I couldn’t care a balls either way so I’ll do the investigation.

 

1) Signatures change. Not everyone can reproduce their own perfectly over time. I certainly can’t. Not perfectly.

 

2) This photo of her 121st birthday. If this was Yvonne, she’d (only) be 97. No chance. This looks like something you’d find in a pyramid.


3) What’s really the point in lying so much, and for this long, if indeed this was all false? Why does it matter so much? What’s the motivation, particularly 25 years on, to keep it up?

 

To conclude my impartial investigation: Jeanne was Jeanne and not Yvonne.

 

Oh, and 4) If you disagree with any of this, please refer to the first five words of my post.

 

Switch in her signature in 1933 is just a part of her story which is necessary to understand it, not the only argument in any way.

People do look like that shortly before their death in late nineties. If you check her earlier photos and videos, she looked and talked like people in their 80s when she was "113".

The point of lying so much was not to go to jail for her fraud. She was lying even to her child who thought she was his grandmother. But to get the point one should check the evidence.

[TQR 14,384]

2 minutes ago, nzak said:

 

Switch in her signature in 1933 is just a part of her story which is necessary to understand it, not the only argument in any way.

People do look like that shortly before their death in late nineties. If you check her earlier photos and videos, she looked and talked like people in their 80s when she was "113".

The point of lying so much was not to go to jail for her fraud. She was lying even to her child who thought she was his grandmother. But to get the point one should check the evidence.

Re-read point 4.

[nzak 21]

44 minutes ago, TQR said:

Re-read point 4.

The fact that you don't care does not make your opinion more valuable, so what's the point? How does your "investigation" contribute to anything?