Thursday, October 23, 2014   |   3,598 users online
Contact us    |    Advertise    |   Help   RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon
    Home  ·  News  ·  Forum  ·  Stories  ·  Image Gallery  ·  Columns  ·  Encyclopedia  ·  Videos  ·  Chat
Find: in

127-year-old woman is oldest human in history


Posted on Sunday, 31 August, 2014 | Comment icon 57 comments


Could Lumbreras really be 127 years old ? Image Credit: CC BY 2.0 Steven Depolo

Leandra Becerra Lumbreras, who is from Mexico, is believed to have been born on August 31, 1887.

According to her family, the 127-year-old was born in the same year that Queen Victoria celebrated her Golden Jubilee and has lived through the entire 20th century including both World Wars and the fall of the Berlin Wall at which point she was already over 100.

Lumbreras has attributed her longevity to never getting married, sleeping for days at a time and to eating a healthy diet with the occasional chocolate snack.

Unfortunately however her incredible age has not been recognized by Guinness World Records because she lost her birth certificate when moving house 40 years ago. Critics have also argued over whether she is really as old as she says given that there is no way to verify her date of birth.

Those that know her however are adament that her age is exactly what she says it is and her remarkable family of 73 grandchildren and 55 great-grandchildren are further testament to the fact that she has certainly been around for quite some time.

"She is entirely lucid," said granddaughter Miriam Alvear. "She blows your mind with her stories from the revolution. She was always a woman who fought. She was still sewing and weaving until about two years ago. She never ceased to be active, that's why we think she's lived so long."

   
Source: Telegraph | Comments (57)

Tags: Old Age, Oldest Person


 
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #48 Posted by Rlyeh on 5 September, 2014, 2:23
Maybe not in make believe land, but in reality stellar parallax is the observation of stars moving against the background as the earth follows it's orbit.
Comment icon #49 Posted by Insaniac on 5 September, 2014, 21:30
If I haven't misunderstood, stellar parallax makes little sense as it is taught. Apparently, it's the observation of star's moving across the background, but the thing is, if one is to believe it's the Earth that is moving, those star's aren't really moving it all. Seems to render the observation redundant and pointless... It's like sitting on one of those 'Moving Teacup' rides as it is in motion, but claiming everything around you is moving. Truth is I believe, that the Sun rotates around the Earth. Like Ashyne mentioned, you only ever see the sun shi... [More]
Comment icon #50 Posted by Rlyeh on 6 September, 2014, 3:00
Based on the earths orbit, it's one of the methods used to determine the distance of stars. Hardly useless at all. You got that backwards. In this case the stars are moving back and forth because the earth is orbiting the sun.
Comment icon #51 Posted by Insaniac on 6 September, 2014, 18:11
Believe that if you like. I believe the Earth remains still and stars (atleast the Sun) traverse around the Earth. But the star's are only "moving" because the Earth is going around the Sun according to this... If it's the Earth that is moving, is only gives the illusion that the star's are...
Comment icon #52 Posted by DieChecker on 6 September, 2014, 19:34
Well, the stars do rotate (move) around the center of the galaxy.
Comment icon #53 Posted by Ashyne on 6 September, 2014, 22:59
Comment icon #54 Posted by libstaK on 6 September, 2014, 23:12
I feel like I just entered the twilight zone. Actually, this reminds me of a work colleague who was asked where the wind came from. His answer made me feel just like I feel right now. "The leaves on the trees swaying is what causes the wind". I feel a headache coming on.
Comment icon #55 Posted by Frank Merton on 6 September, 2014, 23:52
I once asked a young rural river fisherman how the lady in the Moon (in Vietnam she's female) keeps the moon from hitting the earth. He thought awhile and then said he didn't know, but he's sure she knows how to do it. This was 21st century. Oh, and of course there is the old, "The moon is more useful than the sun -- the moon often shines at night but the sun only in the daytime, when it's light anyway.
Comment icon #56 Posted by Frank Merton on 7 September, 2014, 0:00
The absence of stellar parallax is why Aristotle decided the earth was stationary, although he understood pretty well the case for saying otherwise (the Greek intellects were pretty smart). Of course the truth is the stars are so far away that it takes a pretty good telescope to measure it, but it's there. The motion is against stars even further away where the parallax is even smaller (parallax is larger the closer the star). As for the motion of stars around the galaxy, this is not detectable using lateral motions. Only motion toward and away from us can be measured from studying the... [More]
Comment icon #57 Posted by Rlyeh on 7 September, 2014, 1:09
The stars also move slowly along their own orbit, however their movement in the sky is mostly the earth's rotation and orbit. Neither of them are orbiting. Your analogy fails to take into account mass and gravity.


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Stories & Experiences
Hotel hauntings
10-22-2014 | Sierra Vista, Arizona
 
A conflict of interest
10-22-2014 | South Jersey, United States
 
My experience
10-7-2014 | United States
 
Spirit sighting
10-7-2014 | UK
 
My strange house
9-30-2014 | London, England
 
Winged beings
9-30-2014 | Wharton, IL USA
 
Demon possession in Thailand
9-30-2014 | Korat Thailand
 

         More stories | Send us your story
 
Top   |  Home   |   Forum   |   News   |   Image Gallery   |  Columns   |   Encyclopedia   |   Videos   |   Polls
UM-X 10.6 Unexplained-Mysteries.com 2001-2014
Privacy Policy and Disclaimer   |   Cookies   |   Advertise   |   Contact   |   Help/FAQ