Schmidt DID finish the Columbus Marathon
And she's got the picture, medal and trophy to prove it!“In 1993, Jean ran in the Columbus Marathon and finished fifth in her class. Today we are releasing a copy of the finish line photo, the trophy for fifth place and Jean’s runner’s medal. These are irrefutable proof of her time and participation,” said Rep. Jean Schmidt's chief of staff, Barry Bennett.
Schmidt's participation in the Columbus Marathon is one of several athletic races listed on her campaign Web site biography that have been called into question in a complaint filed with the Ohio Elections Commission.
UPDATE from Nate Noy, who filed the complaint with the Elections Commission: "The Schmidt team is going to make a proverbial fool of you. I have proof that: (1) The photo is a fake and (2) the medal and trophy belong to someone else that Jean Schmidt knows. Official race results are 'irrefutable proof' not a doctored photo or a trophy that a friend can lend you. I hope you will retract the title of your article; Jean is taking you for what could be a rather embarrassing ride.'
More photos and details to come...
24 Comments:
at 11:39 PM, August 16, 2006 
natenoy said...
-
-
at 8:17 AM, August 17, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 9:18 AM, August 17, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 10:24 AM, August 17, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:05 AM, August 17, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:11 AM, August 17, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 3:13 PM, August 17, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 3:22 PM, August 17, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 4:28 PM, August 17, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8:15 PM, August 24, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8:24 PM, August 24, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 10:52 PM, August 24, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 12:19 AM, August 25, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6:13 AM, August 25, 2006 
Frankie said...
-
-
at 8:54 AM, August 25, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 9:04 AM, August 25, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 9:23 AM, August 25, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:08 AM, August 25, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:09 AM, August 25, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:24 AM, August 25, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 12:53 PM, August 27, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 1:24 AM, August 29, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:04 AM, August 29, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6:18 PM, August 29, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
Post a Comment*Any photography experts in the crowd? Notice how the shadow is not broken by Jean? And where is Jean’s partial shadow? Should we not see that in the picture? Is she a specter? This is a photoshop special folks, and I have the proof which I’ll present to the OEC on August 24.
Nate
Nate, get a freaking life you creepy loser.
Isn't it amazing how the "creepy loser" types are so much smarter than reporters?
Wasn't it a creepy loser who exposed Dan Rather's fraud?
And what were the people who exposed Reuters' photo fakery called?
And what about the people who exposed the lies and coverups at the New York Times involving Jayson Blair's "reporting?" I am sure they were called creepy losers (or worse) and told to get a life.
The fact is that the Cincinnati Enquirer has developed a nasty habit of accepting whatever garbage Jean Schmidt and her associates feed them.
They have an equally nasty habit of ignoring or downplaying information which does not fit their worldview.
This is why, for one example, Nate Noy, the "creepy loser" is going to be the source of the news that Jean Schmidt was lying about her credentials as far back as 1989. The Enquirer, The Post, all 4 TV stations, and WLW have known this for nearly six months and have refused to acknowledge it. I should know. I sent them the proof. They ignored it.
Somehow, this "creepy loser" is exposing all the facts that the Enquirer and the rest of the Cincinnati news media don't want to admit.
As long as the Enquirer is run by the current Gannett Gang, Jean Schmidt will be protected and coddled.
The Internet will be the only source of truth. All other avenues are closed to anyone who dares to challenge the Enquirer's assumptions and biases.
Oh puleeeeeeeeeeze, who cares about those medals! Gene Schmidt is a glorified piece of crap! Go Wulsin- get her out!
Sorry, but I have to side with Nate Noy on this one.
It is true that Schmidt and Bennett lied to the media in April, you can watch her lie right to your face on Channel 12 Newsmakers when she claimed her resume scandal was the work of sloppy web design in 2001...
The fact is, she's been lying about the resume story since 1989, and all it takes is for you to look at the November 2nd, 1989 Clermont Sun.
If that's not enough proof for you, then read the Enquirer from 1997.
Schmidt will again blame this latest lie on her webmaster. I pity the fool.
Schmidt is a liar, and now that she's a nationally known name, her house of cards is starting to unravel. It's sad that Republicans weren't paying attention over the past year.
noy, you moron. that shadowed isn't broken by jean because it's hers.
Anonymous you are wrong, the shadow is being cast by the man behind her. Look at the hand of the shadow, it matches his open hand not her closed one.
I am a Photoshop expert–spending ten hours a day in Adobe Photoshop for the last ten years. There is no way to know if this is fake. The photo posted here has two problems, jpeg compression is to high and the dpi is to low. Until to original photo can be examined we will never know. The only hint is that her shadow is missing, but that could be behind the man in front of her and the rest of the shadow may have been cut off from the crop of the photo.
I would love to see the original.
Noy, you resemble someone who is mentally ill. i can't believe your idiocy. The classic fight for attention. Do you have some sick and perverted fantasy about Jean that makes you study her pictures so intently?
Photo shop expert. I understand the photo is in her office for viewing. Also look at the length of the two shadows. The one with the guy in the yellow hat is much longer than the guy behind him. The shadow next to Schmidt is a combination of her shadow and the guy in the yellow hat. Remember he looks to be a tall person and Schmidt is a much shorter person.
"The shadow next to Schmidt is a combination of her shadow and the guy in the yellow hat. Remember he looks to be a tall person and Schmidt is a much shorter person."
The shadow CANNOT be a combination since the shadow would run in a straight line from the sun to the person casting it - at the same angle. Since Jean is several feet in front of the guy behind her, her SHADOW would be several feet in front of his as well. The only way it could "merge" with his if the two shadows were being cast by different light sources.
The shadow is either being hidden by the guy in front of her (possible) or it is not there. Looks to me like it's not there.
Can you say "busted"? People seem to think they can get away with anything these days. The liars seem to forget that the general voting public has got: 1) strong internet resources to verify so-called "facts" (and, no, Wikipedia doesn't count); 2) video, photos, online archives, and something called a "telephone" where you can call people - called "experts" who have limitless acess to resources we voters have barely heard of; 3) common sense and a brain (i.e. cognitive, critical thinking skills) which can basically add 2+2 (like: the GOP seems to think we swallow whatever they say - and we voters often prove they are crooks, liars, greedy little #!$#$-ers).
Cheers.
The shadow next to Schmidt is a combination of her shadow and the guy in the yellow hat. Remember he looks to be a tall person and Schmidt is a much shorter person.
That wouldn't be accurate. Her shadow would have to be at a different angle than his for your scenario to occur. His shadow is behind her, not through her.
Whether fake or not, I think it's embarassing that someone is using a 13 year old picture on her website. Wouldn't something from at least the LATE '90's be more appropriate?
if you run a marathon in sweatpants, or whatever she has on, your legs would be so freaking rubbed raw they would be bleeding
her best time that she featured on her website is 3:53:18. Now I know Columbus is pretty flat, but thats still ~34 minutes...
Nate Hoy is probably being secretly paid by Victoria Wulson's campaign to try to ruin Jean Schmidt's reputation.
The photo is real. If you are naive enough to think that the shadow is "missing," please consider this. Place a dot (dot A) at the feet of the man behind Jean, right where his shadow begins. Now, draw a straight line, from this dot, in the direction of his shadow. Next, place a dot (dot B), where you believe Jean Schmidt's foot might be. Keep in mind that the man in front of her is blocking our view of her knees. Now, draw a straight line from dot B, making sure it is parallel to the line from dot A. You will notice that the line is completely hidden by the man in front of her until it goes off the page.
She is not wearing sweat pants. She is wearing polypropylene pants that do not go all the way down to her feet. They are skin tight and do not rub. Runners wear these all of the time, especially on a chilly fall day like this one. Check out columbusmarathon.com and you will see other runners wearing gloves and other similar attire.
There was another comment here about her finish time being 34 minutes faster than a time for a more recent marathon listed on her web site. In 1993, she was in her early 40's. Now, she is well into her 50's and obviously a 50-year-old does not run as fast as they did over 10 years ago. 34 minutes is a very plausible difference in marathon times, even in consecutive races.
As for the picture being "embarrassing" because it's 13 years old; it was placed there as proof that she finished the 1993 race.
Nate Hoy is just trying to hurt Jean's reputation. Jean is a very hard-working woman who sincerely cares about the people she represents. I am a lifelong Miami Township resident, watched her finish many races, and I have voted for her in every election. Don't believe the false accusations and the reputation trashing from her opponents. I wish more politicians were as grounded and genuine as Jean.
The problem with Googling her times is that you only get recent times. There's a huge difference between running as a 50 year old and running as a 42 year old. In 1994, she ran the New York Marathon in 3:31:06. Do the search. 3:19 a year earlier is not a stretch.
Plus if you go to MarathonGuide.com you'll see that she runs lots of marathons.
Oops. To search New York Road Runners, the link is this. I put an extra character in.
There is absolutely no question that the shadow is missing. By projective geometry and linearity, it should be visible under the black man's left hand. This photo is a complete fake.
-drl
Her lack of a shadow is not proof that the photo is doctored. Everyone knows that vampires don't cast shadows.
There is nothing wrong with the photo. Yes, I am an expert. Schmidt's shadow is obscured by the runner in front of her. I spotted a typefce mismatch in the banner, but it's not a smoking gun, either.
1. Are all liberals children.? It sure seems so from the mature postings... Man, we are in trouble in the next gen.
2. 3:19 is NOT unrealistic for someone who regularily gets a 4 hour marathon. My PR is a 3:06. BUT, I've never even gotten close to that in another race. I've run 22, and my next best is 3:19, then 3:22. I usually run around a 3:35. So, there is no question that she is capable of that 3:19. FYI. My 3:06 was at Columbus.
3. Regarding the shadows. It seems like the logical folks have pretty much covered that one. There is no way that her shadow would be showing.
4. Regarding the "sweats??" Obviously these postings are from non-runners. It is obvious to me that they are NOT sweats, but more like tights, or a poly-pants of some kind. FYI to the liberals, Columbus is in the middle of October. When I ran it, it was 40-45 degrees. I wouldn't wear tights at 40 degrees, but ALOT of people would. You try standing for 20-30 minutes at the starting line of a 40 degree race. I remember when I ran, I thought that I was going to chip my teeth because they were chattering so much.
5. The thing that bothers me most is that this NOY person is WASTING tax payers money on this thing. It doesn't MATTER, it has no significance. What a waste of time and money; typical Liberal...
I do not know about doctoring photos, but I think learning the knowing the race results is important.
Go to www.columbusmarathon.com. Select “Previous Results” under “Race Information”
This will send you to http://onlineraceresults.com/search/index.php
Enter “Jean Schmidt” in the “Result Search” box.
This will pull up several races in which she has participated.
For Columbus Marathon 2003 (10/19/2003) - the time for Jean Schmidt was 3:56:06, good enough for 12th in her age group. This time is ~30 minutes more than claimed…not troubling if the photo is not taken at the finish line. However, the website shows a bib number of 3378 for Schmidt while the photo shows a bib number beginning with 55.
If you click on the Columbus Marathon 2003 link,you can get more detail will see that she was 12 of of 99 in her age group (F 50-54 yo).
Looking through the race results you will see that a time of 3:19:06 would have won her age group. And bib number 1210 (the person in the back right of the photo) finished in 3:14:43 (before the time on the clock).
Now I am more confused about teh photo than when I began....
This whole argument is absurd. There are a lot of reasons why not to like Schmidt, she's a chickenhawk, the whole Murtha thing was an embarrassment. Lets' stick to the issues!
By the way, all you Politics Extra guys look like you could stand to run a couple of miles.
>>>For Columbus Marathon 2003 (10/19/2003)
The results in questions are from 1993!!!
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.
<< Home