Closeness to shore means that status as a freak wave is questionable. Cortes Bank for example generates very big waves but they don't count as freak waves.
Thanks Geni. When I tell people about this sort of thing, they tend to not believe it. No, not freak waves, that "scientist" actually refuse to believe stuff. It's not like they go "Hmm, if that is true, it is an interesting event, worth investigating. Especially of the stories of damage and sinking of ships is involved. A terrible financial and human loss."
No, they go, "Doubtful. Impossible. Just myths." And then do no investigating at all. Which isn't science of course, it is something else.
More that they felt they lacked the evidence that they could use to conclude they existed. Draupner wave was the first actual solid bit of evidence.
Which illustrates the reason many people distrust and are skeptical of "scientist". Rather than investigate, try and discover the truth, they make claims with no evidence at all. And even worse, they use horrible reasoning to try and defend their stupidity.
A damaged ship, lives lost, and multiple eye witness accounts of a terrible freak wave that caused the event, IS evidence. Thousands of such reports, from all over the world, for thousands of years, is the kind if evidence people who live in reality understand.
Thousands of years of actual sailors, you know, people who actually sailed around on the ocean, for thousands of years they told about freak waves, and the terrible losses from them. Scientist refused to believe. They didn't just dismiss the entire history of eye witness accounts of them, they refused to believe it could even happen. It was a myth.
Sailors also reported a lot of mermaids.
See? Using a horrible fallacy like, "Sailors also reported a lot of mermaids.", to shore up a claim is stupid. It is the sort of reasoning I mock people for.
That isn't an argument, a logical reason, or even close to scientific.
One could, if one was so inclined, use that sort of fallacy to dismiss everything else sailors reported, that you have no evidence for.
So just stop it.
I mentioned the Daytona Beach wave, because it is about as solid a fact as one can find in the US, in recent history.
You can find the event listed by NOAA here
The event, which actually occurred, still baffles "scientist". A 27 mile long wave, from 10 to 20 feet high, (nobody is sure), smashed into a heavily populated beach area, at night. It swamped the fireworks barge, canceling the next evenings firework display. (The barge was anchored well offshore)
It injured at least 75 people, 20 of them needing emergency medical attention. It rushed up over 70 feet past the high water mark, smashing people into concrete seawalls, damaging beach equipment, smashing hundreds of cars and instilling sheer terror in those caught up in it.
For those not familiar with Daytona Beach, this was the night before the Fourth of July. The place was packed with party people, setting off fireworks on the beach. And doing other stuff. The ocean was flat. (This means no waves to speak of).
Nobody knows what caused the wave. The theory that it was an undersea landslide is not supported by seismic evidence, and the sea bottom there is very flat sand, no cliffs or other geology that lends itself to undersea slumping.
If it was a Tsunami, that doesn't change the facts. A really big freak wave hit the coastline with no warning, and it came out of nowhere. That is the definition of a freak wave.
Nobody knows what caused it. It was freak wave. There are historic reports of the same event on other beaches around the world.
To say nothing of the huge waves at sea.
It's freaky man.
It also happened before the 1995 "evidence" that convinced scientist freak waves existed.