On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:31:46 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

If the sunspot numbers were fudged, as you claim,
then the images could NOT have matched. And thousands of amateur
astronomers around the world would have seen and reported on the
discrepancy.

I don't know much about sunspot counting, so I thought it might be
useful to Google for how it's done:
http://spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotnumber.html
Looks like we have the "Boulder Sunspot Number" and the "International
Sunspot Number". Boulder is about 25% higher than International. The
ARRL uses the "Wolf number" from Zurich:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_number
http://sidc.oma.be/silso/

This month's count. Note the wide variation:
http://sidc.oma.be/silso/eisnplot
Average? Ok, that's explained in the FAQ:
http://sidc.oma.be/silso/faq-page

From the SpaceWeather page, counting your own might be problematic:
As a rule of thumb, if you divide either of the official
sunspot numbers by 15, you'll get the approximate number
of individual sunspots visible on the solar disk if you
look at the Sun by projecting its image on a paper plate
with a small telescope.

Hmmm... Maybe I didn't want to know more about sunspots.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558