K. Smith wrote:
otnmbrd wrote:

Sheesh, took me 5 minutes to delete the "Krause Diatribe".

snipped a whole bunch more

So assuming you took the time to read this now go back & look at the
pics, notice that all the really big waves have no reference other than
the wave & deck??? it's just how it looks, note how any of the pics with
some seascape in them give a more realistic effect as to the wave
heights, & even then sometime people have pics of small boats in not
even mild conditions but the illusion is that the waves are huge.

1. Normally a glass of "Coke" or clinometer will move to a greater
degree than the ship/boat. In the case of a clinometer, if you read a 40
deg roll, at sea, divide that in half to get a closer actual roll angle.

2. On a ship, especially one with the HE of this one, in daylight
conditions, as used in those shots, you generally will always have a
good reference to horizontal by the ability of seeing the horizon .....
it's what helps a person's inner ear to keep them standing vertical when
the ship is rolling beneath them ..... take away that visual ability,
and they will bounce off bulkheads.

3. Take a look at the first picture. The foc'sle, at rest, in a loaded
condition, sits @25' above the water. The foremast is @30' tall. The
ship is starting back from a heavy port roll and beginning to recover
from a downward pitch.
For these reasons, the implication that this wave is 100' high, to me,
is incorrect. By rolling the ship (mentally) back about 20 deg and
following the line of the swell ahead, you can get a better idea of it's
height..... again, I'd say @60 +/-.
It's interesting to note that there is no water on deck. This, coupled
with the fact that this wave blew out a porthole which is about 20+ feet
above the main deck, and the engine was only running at full ahead
maneuvering, leads me to think that they had been running fairly BG
comfortably and this was a "freak wave".

4. Second picture .... seas, 30'-40' range.

otn