Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real
[quote name='AdropOFvenom' post='90710' date='Apr 26 2007, 06:07 PM'][quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='90707' date='Apr 26 2007, 04:57 PM'][quote name='AdropOFvenom' post='90703' date='Apr 26 2007, 05:51 PM'][quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='90701' date='Apr 26 2007, 04:45 PM'][quote name='AdropOFvenom' post='90700' date='Apr 26 2007, 05:42 PM'][quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='90698' date='Apr 26 2007, 04:36 PM'][quote name='AdropOFvenom' post='90696' date='Apr 26 2007, 05:33 PM'][quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='90695' date='Apr 26 2007, 04:31 PM']1. The Bloody Sock wasn't real.2. The Donated Sock wasn't the sock he wore in the game.3. Sounds like Mirabelli was jokingly telling the truth (most lies are reveal through jokes) but when it was reported he backtracked.[/quote]Only a dilusional Yankee Fan would believe any of that.
[/quote]When you are bleeding through cloth here is what happens:A faint red spot starts to show under the cloth. Then a little red spot appears with faint red surrounding it. Then the socks starts to bleed through around the spot. The spot expands, bigger and bigger, until the bleeding stops.With Schilling, the spot suddenly appeared in it's entirety and did not ever get bigger.And Schilling is an attention whore, it's not like he's the stand up guy who wouldn't pull a publicity stunt.[/quote]Or maybe the spot on his foot started bleeding, and no TV announcer/Cameraman noticed it for half an inning or so (That half an inning he might have been sitting in the comfort of his own bench for all we know), in which time the cut began to close itself up. :whistling:[/quote]That certainly seems logical, lol.[/quote]Were you sitting there staring at the Schilling's foot to notice a 'Faint Red Spot' as it got deeper in color and expanded.....of course not, you were busy watching the game itself. You wouldn't begin to notice it until there already a sizeable spot on his foot. Which is exactly what happened.[/quote]And yet when people went and reviewed the footage of the game, yes they might be Yankee fans, but you can't lie about this, there was n evidence on enhanced views. It was suddenly there. And if that much blood shows up all of a sudden, the sock would quickly be soaked, which it wasn't, it never got bigger. It's like some "blood" magically squirted onto the sock and the "wound" immediately closed back up. Which is not physically possible.[/quote]I would have to see said footage in question to comment from it, but all that 'enhanced views' really means nothing unless the 'enhanced views' were taken within a short period of time of each other to see how it would progress (ie: The Same Inning). If for example if Shot A was taken in the Second Inning and Shot B was taken in the Third Inning, one can assume that his foot would have at minimum 10 minutes to partially soak a sock, which is definately possible.[/quote]If his sock went from nothing to as covered as it was in 10 minutes then it wouldn't have stopped so suddenly.
