If you want to believe she was who she said she was and lived to be 122, there's evidence in there to support it--providing you're willing to ignore all the evidence pointing to identity theft and pension fraud. My objection to the Wikipedia article is the way the a priori most likely interpretation (identity theft and pension fraud are currently many orders of magnitude more common than living past 120) is treated as a debunked conspiracy theory and the improbable/sensational interpretation is treated as established fact.
Comments
Yeah, they're what I was using.
If you want to believe she was who she said she was and lived to be 122, there's evidence in there to support it--providing you're willing to ignore all the evidence pointing to identity theft and pension fraud. My objection to the Wikipedia article is the way the a priori most likely interpretation (identity theft and pension fraud are currently many orders of magnitude more common than living past 120) is treated as a debunked conspiracy theory and the improbable/sensational interpretation is treated as established fact.