Politics Extra: Beyond a shadow of a doubt

Friday, August 25, 2006

Beyond a shadow of a doubt

Based on e-mail and blogger response, readers clearly are intrigued by the debate over Rep. Jean Schmidt's shadow, or lack of one, in her 1993 Columbus Marathon finish-line photo.

One reader even asked if Schmidt is wearing sweatpants in the photo...

What do you think?

Nathan Noy, a write-in candidate for Congress in Schmidt's district, who alleges Schmidt is exaggerating her marathon feats, says he plans to call photo experts to a September hearing before the Ohio Elections Commission.

Schmidt's attorney, Joe Braun, said he has called on race photographer Thomas Madine to swear by the authenticity of the photo.

And Braun and Noy said they both have tried to locate Pamela Saylor of West Chester who is listed as finishing less than a second behind Schmidt.

At Thursday's probable cause hearing of the Ohio Elections Commission, Chairman William Booth asked about the finish-line shadows -- or lack thereof.

Noy alleges that because Schmidt cast no shadow, and her body breaks someone else's, it indicates the photo was doctored.

"I can’t explain the shadow," Braun said. "I wish I could. . . I would submit there’s overwhelming other evidence such as the official results, the plaque and I’ve got a slew of medals I can start going through over here if we need to."

Read some of the original debate over the photo on this earlier blog entry

16 Comments:

at 12:45 PM, August 25, 2006

Anonymous said...

I will leave it to an expert to determine if the photo is REALLY a fake, but four things stand out as suspicious:

1) Schmidt clearly does not cast a shadow. She breaks the shadow of the runner behind her. Look at the hands on the shadow that Schmidt breaks. These hands clearly belong to the runner behind her. Schmidt's right hand is a tight fist.

Where is Schmidt's shadow?

2) Schmidt is wearing sweat pants on a day where everyone else in the photo is wearing shorts.

3) Everyone else in the photo looks exhausted, as they should at the end of a long race. But Schmidt looks like she's just ready to get started.

4) Schmidt is looking and smiling directly into the camera, as if she is posing for a picture. All of the runners around Schmidt are completely unaware of the photographer.

In summary, something doesn't quite sit well with this photograph. Noy may have a case.
I invite anyone to discuss, debate, or refute my points.

at 12:56 PM, August 25, 2006

Anonymous said...

The 1993 Columbus Marathon Results Magazine scores Jean Schmidt 5th in age group with a time of 3:19:09. This is the official result magazine. I doubt that she was able to alter it also.

at 1:17 PM, August 25, 2006

Anonymous said...

Why would she fake a picture from 12 years ago?

honestly, what could her motive possibly be, it makes absolutely no sense.

this is a pretty good explanation of what is going on with the picture,

http://sean.gleeson.us/2006/08/24/schmidt-marathon

any 10 year old with a protractor could figure out why she doesnt have a shadow...

at 1:22 PM, August 25, 2006

Nasty, Brutish & Short said...

This is the dumbest local scandal we have ever had. DUMBEST EVER. God I wish Marge were still alive, or Mike Allen was schtuping the help. Those were local scandals, folks. Local indeed.

at 1:34 PM, August 25, 2006

Anonymous said...

"And Braun and Noy said they both have tried to locate Pamela Saylor of West Chester who is listed as finishing less than a second behind Schmidt."

If Mean Jean is listed as finishing less than 1 second ahead of another woman, and this photograph is of the finish line, then why isn't this woman in the picture right behind Mean Jean? She should be no more than 1 pace behind Mean Jean. Something is being forged here, that's for sure.

at 2:19 PM, August 25, 2006

Anonymous said...

I can refute all your points:

1) Schmidt's shadow is clearly off camera. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Example: can you see Hawaii right now? Another example: everything ceases to exist when you close your eyes, right? Ask any little kid....

2) Schmidt is wearing running tights, most likely with "wicking technology" which would keep her cool and dry as well as block the sun. Pretty smart.

3) Runner's high is exhilarating. She also looks happy to finish or to run. This could offset most of that embarassing "exhausted" look. I hear some people even smile for the camera.

4) Schmidt may be more aware of her surroundings than you're used to. Also, basing your conclusion on such a small sample size is indicative of a poor background in statistics. Perhaps a better conclusion would be "three out of four runners look at the camera while crossing the finish line."

Noy's case is weak at best. No sense getting fired up about this.

Based on her last five years of marathon times, Schmidt seems to slow down about five minutes per year. Last year she ran a 4:05 time so her disputed time is actually entirely plausible.

at 2:44 PM, August 25, 2006

Anonymous said...

Jeff,
The 1993 Official Columbus Marathon results magazine shows Pam Saylor at 3:19:24. I think thats 15 seconds behind Schmidt and would be out of the picture. The "official" magazine lists Schmidt as 5th in her group and Saylor as 6th. The 1993 race director has verified that this is the official result.

at 2:59 PM, August 25, 2006

Anonymous said...

Response to 8/25 12:45 blog and others…
1) The shadow of the runner behind her shows his left hand and head. His right hand is blocked by Schmidt, probably her left leg. You can’t see Schmidt’s feet, but they appear to be right on the finish line. Extend her shadow from her feet at the same angle as the runner behind, and her shadow very well could be hidden by the runner in front. Her head, left hand and arm would be positioned just below the bottom of the photo to the left of the runner in front. Try this…. measure the distance from her feet to the feet of the runner behind her, then take that same distance from the other runner’s shadow, and her shadow would begin behind the runner in front of her, and extend off the bottom of the photo. Hmmmmm, looks like there really IS a shadow !!!! I think you need to look a little closer.

2) Some athletes wear those tight pants to keep their hamstrings warm and prevent tightening up. When was the marathon run in 1993? It is usually run in late October, when the average low is in the low 40’s, and since marathons begin early in the day, the race likely began with a low temperature, thus a runner might easily wear something to keep their legs from cramping.

3) I disagree. Other runners are raising their fists, and one of them is smiling just like Schmidt. You can’t even tell if she’s running, jogging, or barely walking across the line. I’ve never ran a marathon, but if I did, I think I’d raise my fists and splash a smile of accomplishment also. You’re making wild assumptions here rather than presenting facts.

4) One can’t tell if she’s looking right at the camera, it looks to me like she’s looking straight ahead, while two other runners are looking down. Now the runner in front of her is looking up – maybe he’s posing. Again, “…just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”

Also, another reader commented that Pamela Saylor should be right on Schmidt's heels if she finished within a second behind her. But what if she's just to the right of Schmidt and out of the photo? The runner behind Schmidt appears to me to be a man (no offense to Saylor if I'm wrong).

I think everyone (especially Noy) better drop the argument here, since the evidence of fabrication simply ARE NOT THERE, and it could be embarrassing and fatal to a campaign bid.

at 3:03 PM, August 25, 2006

Anonymous said...

Where is the shadow from her extended right calf and foot? This photo is as bogus as a 3 dollar bill.

The other two obvious problems - she is staring straight ahead, yet looking straight into the camera which is located high above the runners - and the shadowed relief on her t-shirt from folding would not be so strongly marked given this lighting (compare the other runners).

Amazing.

at 3:44 PM, August 25, 2006

Anonymous said...

I'd like to add that the photo of Jean Schmidt has the following incongruencies that would lead one to think that the photo was taken after another event and transposed into this photo:
1) Her position (6:35) as opposed to the other runners (5:25).
2) She's standing flat-footed, not in full stride like the other runners.
3) Wearing long pants unlike the other runners.
4) She looks REFRESHED not like someone who has just finished a 3 1/2 hour 26 mile race.
5) She is holding part of something in her left hand - her award?
5) The style of her bib (F55?) on a blue background is Not consistant with the bibs of the other runners.
6) She is Not wearing a watch, a prerequisite for anyone running a marathon.

at 3:56 PM, August 25, 2006

Anonymous said...

Obviously most of the comments have not come from runners. We tell our runners to look up at the camera and to smile at the finish line, making a gesture of raising the arms in victory is also suggested. If the runner looks down, the runners face cannot be seen on the finishing photo. For a first time runner or for a runner that completes a marathon with a P.R. (personal record), the photo is a nice rememberence of the event. When the photographer misses a finishing photo and it was a runners P.R. or first time marathon, the runner is very unhappy and sometimes calls the photographer.

Nat Noy needs to get a life. The picture is real.

at 8:40 PM, August 25, 2006

Anonymous said...

Ummmm... 3:44... how can you tell she's flat-footed? Are you seeing feet in that picture that nobody else is?

You could see the feet before it was inserted into photoshop !

at 2:53 PM, August 28, 2006

Anonymous said...

One thing that cannot be exaggerated is what an absolute schmuck Nathan Noy is.

Does anyone need any more proof that Nathan Noy isn't fit to serve?

Case closed.

at 11:49 AM, August 29, 2006

Anonymous said...

Since I was the one who began this discussion with my four points in the first post, I would like to thank all those who joined in the discussion. I especially appreciate the two entries who took time to refute my points, as both of you really made me think.

However, I do not appreciate comments such as "poor background in statistics" and "making wild assumptions." I was simply throwing out points for discussion and seeing where the discussion would go. As I stated previously, I am not an expert, and I have not made up my mind about anything.

If you are passionate about Jean Schmidt as a congressperson, that is fine. But you don't need to hurl insults at people who choose to question something.

at 2:57 PM, August 29, 2006

Anonymous said...

As an expert in digitial image editing with professional experience in manipulating pictures with Photoshop among other applications, I can tell you there is nothing in the posted image that would lead me to suspect manipulation:

- not shadows
- not coloring
- not ambiant reflectivity
- not in continuity

To my trained eye, the picture looks quite authentic and the public record completely verifies what we already knew:

That Jean Schmidt is a far better athelete than average people.

at 1:52 PM, August 30, 2006

Anonymous said...

I don't care if she ran or not: She is clearly a wak job of the highest order.

In every possible respect.

Previous Posts

Friday, August 25, 2006

Beyond a shadow of a doubt

16 Comments: