Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2849747
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real I don't see why the guy would lie about hearing it from Mirabelli but I don't see why he'd disclose it now.
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chang @ Apr 26 2007, 03:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't see why the guy would lie about hearing it from Mirabelli but I don't see why he'd disclose it now.</div>It's definately blood. You really think Curt Schilling would have donated the sock to the Hall of Fame (Where they could test it to find out for sure) if it wasn't covered in Blood? Not to mention people who have gone to the Hall of Fame recently admit that the 'blood' has turned a hue of Brown which is something that would not happen if it was Ketchup or Paint, and would only occur if it was in fact blood. As for Thorne. He's just some mediocre TV announcer, who has later admitted to misunderstanding the conversation and now says Mirabelli was joking. If anybody thinks he holds some credibility on this topic they are sadly mistaken.
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real 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.
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jon_Vilma @ Apr 26 2007, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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.</div>Only a dilusional Yankee Fan would believe any of that.
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AdropOFvenom @ Apr 26 2007, 05:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jon_Vilma @ Apr 26 2007, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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.</div>Only a dilusional Yankee Fan would believe any of that. </div>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.
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jon_Vilma @ Apr 26 2007, 04:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AdropOFvenom @ Apr 26 2007, 05:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jon_Vilma @ Apr 26 2007, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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.</div>Only a dilusional Yankee Fan would believe any of that. </div>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.</div>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:
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real [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.
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real [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.
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real [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.
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real [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.
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.
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real That's baloney. Why would he paint his sock red?? He was clearly bleeding. Yankees fans are just pissed b/c he was able to help the Red Sox complete the comeback.
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jon_Vilma @ Apr 26 2007, 05:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If his sock went from nothing to as covered as it was in 10 minutes then it wouldn't have stopped so suddenly.</div>You're underestimating A) How small the blood spot was (Maybe 1 Inch in Diameter) How little blood it would take to soak a spot of that size.It wasn't that much blood, it's not like he was hemorraging, it's essentially the equviliant of a small cut, and that very well could have stopped suddenly, especially with a sock on top of it to place some pressure down on it.
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real My friend and I noticed that that one is the world series sock. B/c in the ALCS, the blood is an inch lower, and he doesn't have K LCS on his shoes
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real It is in the same spot, just the blood spot is slightly bigger in the ALCS version (and because of that gravity brought the blood downwards). Regardless, the point remains the same. It's a 1 inch diameter spot, that's not a ton of blood and very easily could have stopped because of natural reasons.
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AdropOFvenom @ Apr 26 2007, 06:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jon_Vilma @ Apr 26 2007, 05:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If his sock went from nothing to as covered as it was in 10 minutes then it wouldn't have stopped so suddenly.</div>You're underestimating A) How small the blood spot was (Maybe 1 Inch in Diameter) How little blood it would take to soak a spot of that size.It wasn't that much blood, it's not like he was hemorraging, it's essentially the equviliant of a small cut, and that very well could have stopped suddenly, especially with a sock on top of it to place some pressure down on it.</div>Those socks are thick, it takes more than few drops to soak it through that much.
Re: Mirabelli denies saying bloody sock wasn't real <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DevinHester23 @ Apr 26 2007, 06:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is the LCS:</div>Yeah, that happened all in one half inning.
