Black woman named Joan or Watch your ears

    In the comments to the previous article about the fact that Jeanne Kalman’s 122-year longevity record may turn out to be fake, dear Rikkitik advised to look more closely at Jeanne’s ears on her young and old photos. After all, the form or even the imprint of the ears has long been used in forensic science for identification. And indeed, upon careful consideration, it turned out that the ears were different!

    It is well known that the ears continue to grow throughout life, so I'm not talking about the obvious difference in size. And I'm talking about structural inconsistencies, especially in the upper and lower parts of the ear. At first, especially the inexperienced look, it is difficult to notice some critical differences, but if you know exactly where to look, then it will be difficult not to notice them. For the convenience of understanding of exactly which parts of the ear we are talking about, let's take a look at the nomenclature of the ear anatomy:

    Let the abundance of new unusual terms does not frighten you, pay attention to only two of them: an antotropiosis and a protivazavitok. See that the anti-winder has two legs, top and bottom? Here the counterwave with its legs is tinted with light blue (the legs are superior crus and inferior crus ):

    That's it, now you know more about ears than 99% of ordinary people.

    So, I see the biggest difference in legs anti-waving (the first two photos - young Jeanne, the third - the old one). In young Joan, the upper leg is more pronounced (marked with red dots in the photo below), while in the old Joan it is almost absent. Conversely, the old Joan has a much more developed lower leg (green dots):

    In addition, in the lower part of the ear, there are clearly visible differences in the anti-mowers:

    The young Jeanne has a noticeable, pronounced protivokozelok, while the old Jeanne is practically nonexistent. In addition, the knot circled in green in the ear of the old Joan is missing in the ear of a young one, in which there is a clear intercoeline tenderloin.

    I do not think that the above differences can be explained by age-related changes. As a rule, as it ages, the ear retains its shape and distinctive features. In the photo below, Queen Elizabeth is in comparable ages with the young and old Jeanne:

    But Prince Philip:

    It also seems to me that the ear hole in young Joan is somewhat lower than that of the old:

    At the same time, I am not an expert on age-related changes of the ears or on their identification, so I sent a request to experts in this field, and will update this article as soon as any new information appears.

    By the way, while studying archived photos of Joan, I was amazed how much Yvonne resembled her maternal grandfather:

    The same big nose, powerful chin. The same long neck, the same pronounced jugular folds. Similar eyebrows, cheekbones, lips, even eyelids. Well, ear, where do without him.

    By the way, there is an interesting obvious discrepancy associated with a photo of Jeanne's parents, from which I increased her father's face higher. In the source book, this photo was signed as “parents of Zhanna Kalman around 1880”:

    This is an obvious mistake, since in 1880 Joan’s parents were no more than 43 years old (her father was born in 1837, and her mother in 1838). Well, it can not be a photo of 43-year-old people:

    Nikolai Zak, the author of the investigation of Joan’s potential fraud, put forward an interesting hypothesis about the origin of this error. He thinks that the old “Zhanna”, at the request of his biographers to date this photo, could answer that this photo was taken at the time when she was 5 years old. The real Jeanne was indeed 5 years old in 1880, but Yvonne was 5 years old in 1903, when the people in this photo were about 66 years old, which is much more plausible, given their essentially aged appearance.

    It's funny that there is another, diametrically opposite, discrepancy between the appearance of the person in the photo. If Joan's parents look too old, Joan looks too young in her ID photo:

    The document was issued in the 1930s, when Joan was from 55 to 64 years old. Is this a photo of a woman over 55?

    I do not believe. In this photo, Jeanne looks even younger than in a photo from Yvonne :

    And the picture with Yvonne should have been taken before 1934 (since Yvonne officially died on January 19, 1934). The question arises: why wasn’t a more recent photograph used to identify Joan’s identity? In addition, the posture in the photo is somewhat unusual for identification - almost all French pre-war ID cards that I saw have a full-face photo, rather than a quarter-turn artistic pose with a distant look. Why did the local authorities allow Joan to use such a strange and outdated photo?

    What is even more interesting is why in the identity card the color of her eyes is indicated as “black” when she herself says that she was a green-eyed person in a previously unknown interview from 1988 :

    I had a fifth cousin. His name was Fernand, and he was seven years older than me. He did not pay attention to me: for him I was a “little girl”. One day he opened his eyes, and I was a beautiful girl. Brunette with green eyes.

    Also, why is her hair color listed as “noirs” (black), and not as “brun” (brunette, brown)? Finally, why does she say that Fernand was a “fifth cousin,” when he was her second cousin (and doubly: their paternal grandfathers were brothers, and their paternal grandmothers were sisters)?

    By the way, it may not be so important, but something interesting happened with the signature of Jeanne over the years. Here it is on her marriage certificate from 1896:

    Over the next 5 years, it has not changed, and then by 1926 has changed dramatically (the date of this signature, of course, should be rechecked):

    The signature on the identity card is similar to the signature of 1926:

    The signature change itself is probably insignificant, but given the many other inconsistencies, this can also be an important link in the chain.

    By the way, the 1988 interview contains several more oddities. For example, Zhanna claims that she made her first flight at the age of 40. This means that she flew in 1915, at the height of the First World War, which is rather strange, since there were no passenger planes at that time, and there were very few military ones. Much more plausible would be if it were about 40-year-old Yvonne, i.e. about 1938, when there was already a fairly decent passenger flight. Is that we are talking about flying in a balloon, but this is no novelty, and Jeanne mentions her first flight along with watching the first films of the Lumiere brothers.

    It is also very interesting that when Jeanne describes a visit by Van Gogh to the store of her future husband, she says: “I was not yet married when Van Gogh came to the store to buy a canvas”, whereas just a year later in an interview in 1989, Jeanne declare that her husband personally presented her to Van Gogh, saying: “This is my wife!” Given that in 1988 Zhanna said that her future husband did not pay attention to her until she grew up, it is difficult to imagine that he would call her his wife in 1888 - 8 years before their wedding.

    Another oddity is that Jeanne was significantly mistaken with the age at which her parents died: “Mom died at 90, dad at 87, and my brother at 98”. In fact, Jeanne's mother died at the age of 86 , the father - at the age of 93years, and brother - at the age of 97 years.

    Also in the interview there is a strange passage about the famous Provencal poet and lexicographer Frederick Mistral :

    “Mistral came to open the Museum of Arles. I just got married. It was a very beautiful festival chaired by a Provencal poet. Everyone was supposed to wear [arlesian] costumes. I chose a red dress because I was dark and I had hair in a bun with small strands on my face so as not to be too serious. I was in my mother's brilliant necklace. Then we danced under "Les Folies arlesiennes". It was a kind of casino with a circular gallery. Today there is parking ... "

    Museon Arlaten, about which Jeanne speaks, according to his website , was opened by Mistral in 1899. By that time, Zhanna was not only married for 3 years, but she already had a little daughter. The festival, which she describes, is very similar to the annual festival of national costume , which was really founded by Mistral, and which really took place in the circular Roman theater . That's just founded this festival Mistral in 1903. And it is highly doubtful that 28-year-old Zhanna would take part in it, given what kind of festival it was:

    “The Fete du Costume” (Costume Festival) began in 1903 on the initiative of Frederick Mistral (a famous French writer from the south of France) when he created “Festo Vierginenco” (Festival of Virgins).

    Young girls were invited to wear a dress and hairband as a symbol of their transition to adulthood (up to 15 years they could only wear the Mireille suit).

    But young Yvonne could well take part in this festival. Most likely, the photo below, to which a significant part of my previous article was devoted , is from there:

    After all, the photo of Yvonne above was taken in the Cathedral of St. Trofim , and the festival begins with the morning mass in this cathedral, after which the participants go to the Roman Theater. Here are modern photos from the festival:

    By the way, when in one of the interviews Zhanna was asked if she had ever met Mistral, she replied : “Yes! Yes, he was a friend of my father ... mmm, he was a friend of my husband. ” This was not the only time when Jeanne confused her father and husband in her memoirs.

    In conclusion, I want to share unofficial rumors, but from a source I trust. It turns out that Joan’s fraud (or rather, Yvonne) was discovered by one French civil servants more than ten years ago, but this man decided to remain anonymous. Nevertheless, he conveyed this information to several people, of whom only one decided to make it public. They became Jean-Pierre Daniel - he described the Yvonne fraud in his book Insurance and Its Secrets , which I quoted in a previous article.

    Well, now that a considerable amount of inconsistencies have accumulated in Jeanne Kalman’s history, I very much hope that the French authorities will launch a detailed investigation. I also hope that the validators of Jeanne's longevity record will actively join this, since their scientific reputation is at stake. Is this self-proclaimed “lucky rascal” able to fool everyone like that? But if this is true, then ultimately her lies must be exposed.

    PS: Once again I want to thank Rikkitik for the tip about the ears. Habr - power!

    Also popular now: