Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Katie Holmes & Dave Letterman : NYC Marathon Conspiracy? [Traced & Pieced Together in Comments]

videoOkay, I've been asked about this topic and have always dismissed it as silly - Katie Holmes ran the NYC Marathon - no question - but the conspiracy stays alive - thanks to people who comment here like Spa Ha Runner. Last night she was on Letterman - video above - and she talks about the NYC Marathon. Here we are months later and this thing won't die, due to that appearance last night - today LA Gossip Tabloid Defamer with their headline today of " Katie Holmes Still Claiming To Have Run New York City Marathon, But We Still Have Our Doubts. Defamer says, "Ever since we called shenanigans on Katie Holmes' involvement in the New York City Marathon just over two weeks ago, conspiracy theorists have come out of the woodwork at a rate not seen since Ollie Stone introduced a nation to the ravings of Jim Garrison. As other news organizations started to poke around the highly sensitive hot button issue of marathon integrity, they found the story was a tough nut to crack. Even our nation's most dignified and respected journalistic outlet, US Weekly, was forced to mysteriously removed a blog post that dared to investigate Katie's alleged involvement in the upcoming Boston Marathon. Just when we thought the trail had gone cold, our cause reached its zenith last night when Katie Holmes appeared on The Late Show With David Letterman and addressed the issue that has kept millions of earth humans on the edge of their seats. A few important things to note. One, Dave really went easy on her. He never really addressed the burgeoning conspiracy movement, but that's probably just because he's classier than we are. Still, we think he should've mixed in a probing question like "So, how is it that you were able to wear heels later that night?" Come on Dave, these are the reasons we watch you over Leno. Two, Joey Potter (whose tragic haircut looks like a bad approximation of Natalie Portman's bob in The Professional), would like to have us believe that she decided to run the marathon in August! That gave her 90 days to get into marathon shape. Hmmm, sounds fishy and Dave seems to agree ("Did you go through the full regimen? The 20 mile runs?"). Katie just nods. Three, we find out that the Kanye West's "Stronger" provided the necessary inspirado for Kate to (allegedly) complete the last six miles of the marathon. We know that Kanye is Tom Cruise endorsed, but why not just go with the "Mission: Impossible" theme? [END]. Ordinarily I would not give this topic any attention - however many NYC Marathoners read this blog - perhaps you know something I don't. The only thing I am suspect of is when Dave Letterman ask her if she was fully trained and if she did her long runs, 18 & 20 milers - she replies, "I Did" and nods. Not sure I buy that. I've seen pictures of her on the Marathon route in 1 section, and at the end of the race - yes, I would think she would have been photo'ed a lot more than she was. However I still believe she completed the entire course - now can we put this to bed? Have a great day!


Joe Garland said...

Just put her name in here.

Boy did she die.

Lance said...

The problem Joe is for the hardcore conspiracy minded - that's not enough. I have pointed this out on Harlem 26.2 before, Brightroom (official photographer) is not authorized to photo the celebs in the race.

Okay - for the curious - take a look at those Flickr photos - you will see the 2 guys adjacent to her in various pix are body guards - they have on matching Asics tops (black). One guy is Bib # 28994 and his name is Paul Vincent per the results. The other guy is clearly Bib #6074 - but when plugging that Bib # in the results - it's not identified. This is no existence of this runner #6074. How is that?

If you want to chase a mystery/conspiracy or whatever - there you have it - Bib# 6074 - who is that man? He's the only runner in the history of the NYRR to have a bib # but no name, not even a fake name connected with him.

#6074 - who's that? My guess is some top Security guy within Scientology - I am serious - this is what Tom Cruise said was required for his comfort level for Katie to be in the race.

I posted the above months ago. I see some of the Flickr photos have been removed? Hummmmm? Some are still there....To my knowledge I am the only one that's pointed out this fact about the whole Katie Holmes thing. Now I don't buy into the conspiracy - but this mystery runner #6074 could be pivotal in it - perhaps he wore the chip to register on the splits on the mat. Why is there a bib# connected with an "unknown?" I'll send this info to Defamer and let them hunt it down - they may recognize that person.

Again, I don't buy into the conspiracy - but it's very very very odd that a woman the Paparazzi fall over 24/7/365 does not have a lot more and varied photos of her on the course at various points in the race - the public knew she was running, she was easy to spot in the first few miles - they sell these photos to make money right? It cannot be said there is some mystery to all this Katie Holmes Conspiracy talk due to this non extisting runner bib #6074.

Lance said...

The Flickr link

If you read this blog - you'll note that when I originally posted this observation - there were 2 or 3 photos of katie's security guard and accompanying runner Bib #28994 who showed up in the results as Paul Vincent. He still shows up - he had on the same exact uniform as runner #6074 & finishing time with Katie Holmes - these were the 2 body guards - however since I mentioned this - the photos of him on Flickr have been removed - strange- yet you can still see the photos of the "mystery runner #6074 who does not show up in the data base, but could account for Katie's splits" - just feeding the conspiracy a bit - all anyone can verify themselves...

mhblosser said...

Did anyone think to try #26074? You'll find a 38 year old male, Tim Thomas, who finished approximately 3 minutes before she did.

mhblosser said...

Correction, 40 year old.

Anonymous said...

Not great support for the conspiracy theory but...

If you enter bib#6074 in the brightgroom bub search for the marathon, you get three pictures of him. Katie isn't in any of them. She could possibly be out of frame in the second or third picture, but she's nowhere to be found in the first. I'd think she'd be closer by, as she is in the finish line photos everyone has seen online.

SpaHa Runner said...

Besides the fact that there is no way that she could have run 26.2 miles with no bra (while it is true that some tank tops have built-in support, they don't provide enough support to run 6 miles, yet alone 26.2 miles), here is another interesting point- the photos of Mrs. Tom Cruise that were taken of her supposedly earlier along the marathon route show her WITHOUT a jacket. However, Mrs. Cruise is shown crossing the finish line WITH a jacket on. Even if you are a slow runner like myself, at the end of a brutal 26.2 mile course, the last thing that you would feel like doing is putting on a jacket. The legitimate runners started off with layers on and shed them along the course, not the other way around.

Lance said...

Runners in Bib #28994 & #6074 dressed exactly the same wearing those twin Asics tops and in the early Flickr photos were adjacent to Katie - clearly her security. I saw the photos & posted a link to them months ago - that included #28994 in the photo dressed the same before they now suddenly are no longer on Flickr.

#6074 in the Flickr photos is clearly walking with Katie with his Jacket on in fact in one photo. It looks like he might have his jacket tied around his waste in the Brightroom photos - but he's not with Katie. Why? That photo is nearing the end of the race - and I am sure NYRR officials/security escorted her to her photo finish. But what about runner #6074? That guy is great shape - he did not DNF, even if he did he would have split times registered, but there are none. It looks like he has a chip on his left foot in the brightroom photos.

There are some odd things surrounding this Katie Holmes thing for sure (mystery man #6074 with no record other than those in the photos, removed photos on Flickr, few photos of Katie on the course, and the rest of the conspiratorial stuff).

Zombie Mom said...

This may or may not on topic, but did she seriously not have a running bra on? I ask only because if anything would fuel my suspicions it would be 26.2 with no support.

lach13 said...

All photos show her not wearing anything but a running tank. Which made me VERY suspicious that she ran the whole thing from the outset.

Zombie Mom said...

I have to say her top has held my fascination... I cannot imagine even a quick five miler without a sport bra and forget about the chafing factor for a run lasting more than 40 minutes... I am just saying...

tgill said...

ummm... 12:35 pace per mile is walking pace. Big deal, she doesn't have a sports bra on. The first one I ran I wore a plain tee shirt. Yes my nipples paid for it but I was going a hell of a lot faster. Also you can get a bib number by being a pacer, there are actually people that go marathon to marathon to be a pacer, usually they get food and hotel paid for sometimes money too. Sorry, it's not that impressive to me to walk a marathon any person that has two working legs and isn't a fat ass can do it.

sc465 said...

I'm not too concerned about the sports bra or the pants - I wouldn't run in those, but then, I finished in 3:30.

I think it's weird that if 6074 is her bodyguard, she doesn't appear in his brightroom photos. Or anywhere else along the course - local news covered the race throughout. She didn't run this. It was the day of her husband's movie premier and it made for good press.

endorphinum said...

What if Katie was cloned years
ago and the one we saw running
was not her, but her clone?

Or with THAT hair at letterman
i better shall say ..."but here cone"

Big hugs from Germany,

dimes said...

Not for nothing, but has anyone ever seen any non-marathon pictures of Katie running?

I'm just saying.

CuriousAboutThis said...

I went to brightroom and put in bib #127, Katies number and a picture of a bald man comes up as the runner. Now the first number isn't clearly visible but it appears to be a 1.

then I went to the marathon and tried bib #127 with no results...tried f127 and it turned up Katie, then tried m127 and got nothing.

maybe I didn't do something right but who's the bald guy?

CuriousAboutThis said...

Sorry but I just looked at some FlickR photo's

and there is clearly a bald guy walking with her. See her #127

Here is the brightroom picture of runner MAN 127

This is bizarre....

NosyNell said...

Here's a link to 2 photos:

Photo #1 shows Katie sandwiched between the BALD guy (#28994) and Mystery-Man (#6074). (Notice she's wearing her jacket, so this must be near the end..?)

Photo #2 is a closeup of Katie and the bald guy.

Anonymous said...

Here is a photo of Mr. 6074 clearly wearing a radio tracker on his shoe. Now why would someone who isn't registered have a tracker????

Lance said...

Okay - I am half way sold. As I noted months ago - Katie's Bodyguards in matching Asics tops were #28994 & #6074.

#28994 is accounted for on the splits & finish in the database complete with name (real or not). #6074 is mystery, unaccounted for in the database yet photographed with a timing chip on his shoe right with Katie & his co-bodyguard #28994 right up to 300 yards prior to the finish - that photo is linked in this thread of comments.

It's possible at the very start of the race he wore the racing chip assigned to Katie Holmes. She was registered in the event prior under a fake name - and all these timing splits we see for Katie Holmes are in fact the timing splits of #6074.

This would explain his presence - sans any records connected with his bib - yet a chip on his shoe - another person's chip, Katie's. The 2 bodyguards #28994 & #6074 had to make a choice - who of the two was going to be the "one" (so to speak), the one to wear Katie's chip.

This - coupled with the ladies all very much in agreement that it would be tough if not painful for a neophyte runner like Katie Holmes to run bra-less for 26.2 miles.

Also I would think there would be quite an array of photos of her on the course and videos of her on the course on Youtube - there are not.

It's time for someone to email the New York Road Runners and ask who is #6074 and why is any record of him not in the database, though he is wearing a chip. What's more? The Brightroom photos show him running alone - no Katie - where is she? He would have to run, since he's wearing her register her to have splits in the database...

It's possible Katie was swept on and off the course at different points. Okay - now I am 75% Sold you guys.

I really think it's true - this is a conspiracy - there are too many things that suggest #6074 wore Katie's chip and accounted for her splits in database.

Anonymous said...

I have run three marathons (finished them all - including the Chicago Marathon last year in 93 degrees!) sans bra. I am small on top and the built in bra in my running tanks is enough support for me.

Danny said...

The thing - as someone pointed out in the Flickr comments - #6074 is wearing a 2003 bib.

Anonymous said...

I have a niece who ran the marathon in 2005 and she had to get qualified in several races leading up to the marathon over a period of 1 and 1/2 years...why was Katie Holmes allowed to run if she only started training in August 2007 for it??? Sounds fishy to me!!

Anonymous said...

Katie was wearing yoga pants that were so long they were dragging on the ground. After 26.2 miles they should be ragged. They were perfectly clean.

Anonymous said...

if I may post from my theory on defamer so your guests don't have to click..

"Perhaps I can sum up the Katie Holmes marathon debacle.. strictly a theory.. just like evolution.
I don't think she knew what was going on. Tom & handlers pulled her into the SUV, got near the 30K marker and said "Ok Kate, go run the marathon! This is our special VIP section entrance!"

Her two trainers (Paul Vincent reg'd #28994) and Okerson (unreg'd #6074)) had been running the race since the start. Both men sexy and sweating, waiting to meet up with the Cruises. Each had their own needs.

How much they knew is unclear, but they must have crossed checkpoints at the same time to keep it consistent that K was "running" with Vincent the whole time (hence their near identical split times). There are photos that show Okerson nowhere near K or Vincent. Just check the offical photos from the race @ [] search for bib# 6074. Don't bother with katie (#F127) or vincent's #, they have been purged.

ok but "tie" that all together? every known pic of K (which is oddly enough, after ~30K) shows her with oddly long, sloppy pants that cover her shoes. The shoes are where all racers lace in their tracking chip to register their times on the checkpoints. You can't see hers but you CAN easily see Okerson's chip [] his shoe. Problem with that is, #6074 is NOT registered on the official site. [] Not for 2007. So who's tag is he wearing?

p.s. I'm sorry Katie, I just thought you deserved to know the truth."

i think you should take it up with the authorities. i feel like case solved and i don't care about it anymore. but if i ran and competed like you I would! ;)

Anonymous said...

To Lance:

Forgive me for barging in that this late date. I am not one of your regular readers, but am a Defamer commenter. The gentleman with the #6074 has been identified as Ken Okerson, and his bib is marked 2003 down at the bottom.

The thought is that he wore Katie's chip, and since he himself wasn't registered, nobody would catch the trick. She slipped in somehow near the end and pretended she ran the whole race. Since Ken Okerson doesn't "exist" as far as the officials are concerned, it was easy for him to carry her chip with no one noticing. I believe the long pants she wore were to conceal the fact that she had no chip on her own shoe.

Neologizer said...

The 2003 NYC marathon bibs do not look like the one he has

Amy said...

"ummm... 12:35 pace per mile is walking pace...Sorry, it's not that impressive to me to walk a marathon any person that has two working legs and isn't a fat ass can do it."

I am normally a 10-minute miler and ran Twin Cities this year in the extreme heat this year. I wasn't impressed with the result but hey, you can't control the weather. I finished with a pace slightly faster than Katie Holmes, who ran in much cooler conditions. 12:35 is NOT a walking pace, sorry. I took a ton of walk breaks toward the end, so it does not seem totally crazy to me for her to run this pace after only training for 90 days, if she did in fact do that.

As for the high heels in the evening, I have found that I've been much sorer two days later. I'm sure Katie had a personal masseuse after the race, so I believe wearing the shoes is not totally impossible. I am just reading about this whole conspiracy thing, and I have a hard time believing anyone would want to fake a marathon finish.

Anonymous said...

The mystery runner, #6074, is Wes Okerson, another Tom and Katie crony.

Wes WAS in fact entered in the 2007 marathon with a 2007 bib # 6074 (not 2003, as some people have erroneously stated). The New York Road Runners Club has confirmed this.

Also, if you type in his last name on the web site (the official marathon photographer), the name Okerson, Wes appears, linked to the photos of him on the course.

The key to whether or not Katie Holmes ran the entire 26.2 miles rests with the yellow timing chip. One is seen on Wes' shoe in numerous photos of him (running with and without Katie), yet there are NO split or finish times for him. Why not, since he WAS an official entrant.?

No chip is seen on ANY photo of Katie, since her laces are conveniently covered by the black yoga pants she implausably wore.

The answer to all this is that Wes in all likelihood wore the chip assigned to Katie's bib number, F127. He ran the entire course, thereby generating the split and finish times credited to her.

Katie did run parts of the course; I have seen a video of her approaching the 25 mile mark in Central Park, and a photo of her near the 19 mile mark on First Avenue.

But unless someone can produce a race photo of Katie showing a yellow timing chip on one of her laces, I must conclude that her claim to having run the whole vourse is a well-orchestrated fraud.

japarthur said...

Anonymous said:

"Wes WAS in fact entered in the 2007 marathon with a 2007 bib # 6074 (not 2003, as some people have erroneously stated). The New York Road Runners Club has confirmed this."

Then, why was he using the 2003 # 6074 ?

This is visible for instance here:

(even if the year is not very visible, the color is definitively not the 2007 red; there are clearer photos, but I don't have the links available right now)

It seems difficult to imagine that somebody managed to get the 2003 # 6074 back to give it to him. Moreover, he should have received the 2007 # 6074.

One hypothesis is that Wes ran the 2003 marathon. The following photo shows him alongside somebody else having 2003 # 31873:

Against this hypothesis, there is somebody else who is listed with this number: ?rid=10912394

(maybe there is an error on this site)

As the question asked by anonymous about the chip seems difficult to answer, here are questions for the organizers:

1. Who was 2007 # 6074 ?

2. Why aren't his/ her results available on-line ?

3. Who was 2003 # 6074 ?

4. Why was Wes Okerson allowed to finish the race even though he had a 2003 number ? (it seems that people are filtered at the entrance of the final segment.)

Even if Kate Holmes did run the entire distance, the questions above tend to show that the organizers get involved in something special. Perhaps, it has all to do with the VIP status, but I consider we should be told.

Without clear answers, one can imagine that Wes faked to be a legitimate runner and served as a "chip-carrier".

To support this, the other guy, Paul Vincent, had a legitimate 2007 number and results. Why was it different for Wes ?

japarthur said...

On my previous comment, the color should be blue, not red.

The questions remain true

Phil said...

I found Katie on Brightroom:

Not sure where this is on the course.

japarthur said...

@ Phil: Nice work.
I have some new information, including about what I wrote in my previous post:
1. Wes Okerson certainly had the 2007 # 6074, as Anonymous mentioned. I guess people, including me, were misled by the various colors used. For instance, sawzy based his thinking on the fact that Okerson's number color was different from the guy in front of him, without noticing that this guy has clearly a 2003 number. On the other hand, the number 7 can be misread as a 3 if the surface is not flat.
2. Phil's finding proves that Wes was not very far from Kate at that time.
3. About the location, my guess is that it is not too far from the end. To support this, look at the guy besides Wes on the third photo in Phil's finding, with the dark glasses (see his legs on fifth photo). From other sources, one can say that:
a. he should be part of the organization: he has no number, but a badge [1],
b. he is in charge of Kate’s jacket, before she put it back before the arrival [2],
c. he run with the three others (Holmes, Vincent, Okerson)the very last part of the marathon, as seen on video [3] and on photos [4].
The question about who is in charge of Kate Holmes’ chip remains unanswered.

[1], third photo
[3] I cannot find this video on Internet anymore.
[4], photo from Roua.A.A. The same cop can be seen in [1, «finish photo»]

japarthur said...

To locate the place where the photos used by Phil have been taken, I used the simulation tool provided by the organizers:

and chose runners with different running profiles: Kate Holmes (F127), Diana Roubos (F9951) and Mariana Urdaibay (35175).

The only point where they are together is about half-marathon.

This reasoning is based on the assumption that they began the race at the same time.

japarthur said...

What follows is mainly based on two reliable sources: official results [1] and photos / videos on which other runners are visible [2]. Connecting the two of them is far from simple, for various reasons:
• Official results are expressed in relative time – e.g. difference between the departure time and the time at which somebody reaches a specific distance. Thus, similar relative times do not mean that people where then physically near each other.
• Official results are only available at some specific locations: each 5K, half-marathon, marathon. Some 25k times are missing.
• The numbers are not always easy to read on the visual documents.
To obtain comparable times, Brightroom finish photos with race times were used [3], except for Kate Holmes {F127} & Co (Paul Vincent {28994}, Wesley Okerson {6074} and a man from organization) [4]. Deducting the official time from the finish race time provides the departure race time. Adding the latter to official split times provides the race split times*.
Comparing these times with the photos, one can say that:
• There are photos from Kate Holmes before departure, and a video [5].
• Besides the men accompanying her, two men were rather close to Kate Holmes for most of the race (less than 2 minutes on 5-30K): Anthony Wilson {44212} and Jelle Jaap de Graas {13302}. Their presence on any photo does not help much to identify the location.
• The commentary of one photo [6] says that Kate Holmes almost quitted at mile 8. The presence of Michael Moomaw {36464} on this photo, even if his number is not very visible here, tends to confirm the location.
• Many were closest to her about 20K – half-marathon (mile 13): Palmira Saracino {36184}, Hyuntaek Lee {32486}, Liza Zaneri {F7935}, Ida Tomaschitz {44060}.
• Looking more closely at two runners with very different running patterns – Mariana Urdaibay {35175} and Diana Roubos {F9951} – the Brightroom photos seem to have been taken just after half-marathon, let’s say somewhere around the limit between Brooklyn and Queens [7].
• There are consistent reports – but no photo - that Tom Cruise kissed Kate Holmes at around mile 18 (1st Avenue, E 96th Street).
• Victor Sailer, a know photograph, says he followed her with a motorcycle between the 135th Street bridgeand 110th Streets on 5th Avenue (miles 21-23) [8].
• There are numerous photos showing the four finishing the race [9].
So far, we have reasonable proofs that Kate Holmes was at miles 0, 8, around 13, 18, 21-23, 26-26.1. The rest is speculation, without further evidence.

[2] Mainly that put together many Brightroom photos. If different, the origin is mentioned. Most photos of Kate Holmes and Paul Vincent – but not of Wesley Okerson were removed from Brightroom.
[4] Wesley Okerson’s behavior is suspicious: he does not seem to run like the other three, and just after he crosses between Kate Holmes and the man from organization, as visible on other photos.
[9] There was also a video that does not seem to be available anymore on Internet.
* Here are the reconstructed race split times used here:
Official 5K 10K 15K 20K 1/2 Mar. 25K 30K 35K 40K
44212 ANTHONY WILSON 05:50:15 00:50:27 01:26:25 02:03:04 02:42:02 02:50:29 03:23:39 04:03:02 04:52:02 05:32:15
F127 KATIE HOLMES 05:49:08 00:52:24 01:26:01 02:03:52 02:40:27 02:50:51 03:22:48 04:02:04 04:42:30 05:32:47
36184 PALMIRA SARACINO 05:39:07 00:46:53 01:26:22 02:02:03 02:41:01 02:49:50 04:03:16 04:42:15 05:23:05
35175 MARIANA URDAIBAY 05:18:54 01:05:57 01:38:09 02:10:50 02:43:51 02:51:09 03:18:00 03:52:26 04:26:50 05:03:39
32486 HYUNTAEK LEE 06:01:42 00:53:00 01:27:27 02:02:46 02:41:11 02:50:08 03:24:19 04:09:41 04:54:46 05:41:20
13302 JELLE JAAP DE GRAAS 06:00:26 00:50:48 01:25:44 02:02:11 02:42:26 02:51:28 03:24:30 04:07:01 04:52:38 05:41:30
F7935 LIZA ZANERI 05:55:26 00:56:01 01:31:43 02:04:46 02:40:28 02:49:58 03:22:12 04:04:07 04:50:53 05:37:06
F9951 DIANA ROUBOS 06:25:38 00:46:03 01:20:39 01:56:18 02:36:27 02:47:37 04:16:52 05:11:33 06:02:19
44060 IDA TOMASCHITZ 05:54:27 00:42:01 01:18:58 02:00:36 02:40:49 02:49:44 03:23:09 04:04:54 04:49:28 05:35:05
36464 MICHAEL MOOMAW 05:15:15 00:55:18 01:27:28 02:00:22 02:34:12 02:41:44 03:09:22 03:46:25 04:22:35 04:59:19