<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title> Portuguese scientists set McNamara's wave at 111.5 feet</title>
		<description>Discuss  Portuguese scientists set McNamara's wave at 111.5 feet</description>
		<link>http://www.surfnewsnetwork.com/archive/portuguese-scientists-set-mcnamaras-wave-at-1115-feet</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 15:22:59 --1000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.surfnewsnetwork.com/feed/com_content/994/page-1" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>ADO says:</title>
			<link>http://www.surfnewsnetwork.com/archive/portuguese-scientists-set-mcnamaras-wave-at-1115-feet#comment-519</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Lord, where do I begin? First, the Faculty of Human Kinetics is a physical education department. They are in no way experts on visual imaging analysis. Second, the methodology as quickly explained here seems extremely simple and prone to over estimation. Third, the perspective skews the wave height, as well as obscures the bottom of the wave. Finally, I think majority of these methodologies are completely flawed. It would be good for even Billabong to test their methodology with structures of known heights from different perspectives. That should help prove the accuracy of their methods. Finally, I think for future "official" #'s to be claimed, laser range finders should be used along with tilt measurements made.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>ADO</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:25:03 --1000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.surfnewsnetwork.com/archive/portuguese-scientists-set-mcnamaras-wave-at-1115-feet#comment-519</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
