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

On 7/17/2014 10:58 AM, Dogon wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote
On 7/16/2014 3:25 PM, Dogon wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote (tried to)
On 7/15/2014 11:06 AM, Dogon wrote:
"Brian Morrison" wrote
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 19:17:40 +0200
Dogon wrote:

-The sunspot-count is falsified since a long time now.

So how do you prevent people with their own helioscopes from counting
the true number of spots?
Brian Morrison

Because they don't excist ! Show me one.

Our local astronomy club has several (it has a lot of members, although
I'm not one of them). And once or twice a year, they hold a public
viewing of the sun for anyone interested.

And their pictures always match the ones you find on the NASA site - at
least the couple of times I've been there.


What a dumb reaction ! Ofcourse the pictures are the same ! That was not
the issue ! The issue was the FALSE sunspots count. Can you read man ?


Sure, I can read. But you obviously cannot understand what's plainly in
front of your face. 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.

No it aint that simple. In 2012 the supposed 'peak', the sun was mostly BLANK !
So if you can put one and one together; there couldn't be 125 sunspots.
The HEAD of the solar dept. from NASA said also to underline this with:
"The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar MINIMUM in nearly a century." End quote.
I know all to well that radio amateurs don't want to think outside the box, but technicaly
they changed the count from 'human eye' to computer count. You and i know that a
computer sees always something. A fraction darker pixel etc.

Every astronomer ? Well look for 'dead astronomers' and you will be horrified.
And what about the physical evidence ? For how long is 80 mtrs useless now ?
We live in a solarpeak ?? How many have you experienced ??

These shills here want to suppress any rumor about 'magnetic pole' reversal due to this:
http://poleshift.ning.com among others.

It is that serious folks.


Sure, it's simple. You claimed the sunspot counts were fudged. It's
very simple with a helioscope to count the number of sunspots.

Yes, the sun may be going through another Maunder Minimum - that is
unknown at this time, and scientists don't completely understand what's
occurring. But that does NOT mean the counts are incorrect.

Radio amateurs constantly "think outside the box". That's where
innovation occurs, and hams have done a lot of innovation. And computer
counting is not just one shot - there are many pictures of the sun taken
every minute; a single "dark pixel" will quickly be filtered out.
However, that's another one of your straw man arguments and shows just
how little you know - with the magnification used, a single sunspot
covers much more than one pixel.

As for the magnetic pole reversal - that's no secret, and has been
discussed quite extensively in many publications. But that's not
uncommon; it happens at intervals of 100K to 1M years, with an average
of 450K years. Since the last reversal was 780K years ago, we are
overdue. Just google "geomagnetic pole reversal" and you'll get all
kinds of hits.

It's never wiped out life on earth, or even had a major effect on life.
It just changed the direction of compasses. And since a shift takes 1K
to 10K years, I doubt my compass will be pointing south in my lifetime.

You REALLY need to put your tin hat back on! You're only showing your
gross ignorance.

And BTW - I've been a ham for over 46 years. YOU figure out how many
solar peaks I've been through (hint: they occur about every 11 years).

But then we also know you're not a ham.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

No it aint that simple. In 2012 the supposed 'peak', the sun was mostly BLANK !
So if you can put one and one together; there couldn't be 125 sunspots.
The HEAD of the solar dept. from NASA said also to underline this with:
"The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar MINIMUM in nearly a century." End quote.
I know all to well that radio amateurs don't want to think outside the box, but technicaly
they changed the count from 'human eye' to computer count. You and i know that a
computer sees always something. A fraction darker pixel etc.

Every astronomer ? Well look for 'dead astronomers' and you will be horrified.
And what about the physical evidence ? For how long is 80 mtrs useless now ?
We live in a solarpeak ?? How many have you experienced ??

These shills here want to suppress any rumor about 'magnetic pole' reversal due to this:
http://poleshift.ning.com among others.

It is that serious folks.


Sure, it's simple. You claimed the sunspot counts were fudged. It's
very simple with a helioscope to count the number of sunspots.

Yes, the sun may be going through another Maunder Minimum - that is
unknown at this time, and scientists don't completely understand what's
occurring. But that does NOT mean the counts are incorrect.

Radio amateurs constantly "think outside the box". That's where
innovation occurs, and hams have done a lot of innovation. And computer
counting is not just one shot - there are many pictures of the sun taken
every minute; a single "dark pixel" will quickly be filtered out.
However, that's another one of your straw man arguments and shows just
how little you know - with the magnification used, a single sunspot
covers much more than one pixel.

As for the magnetic pole reversal - that's no secret, and has been
discussed quite extensively in many publications. But that's not
uncommon; it happens at intervals of 100K to 1M years, with an average
of 450K years. Since the last reversal was 780K years ago, we are
overdue. Just google "geomagnetic pole reversal" and you'll get all
kinds of hits.

It's never wiped out life on earth, or even had a major effect on life.
It just changed the direction of compasses. And since a shift takes 1K
to 10K years, I doubt my compass will be pointing south in my lifetime.

You REALLY need to put your tin hat back on! You're only showing your
gross ignorance.

And BTW - I've been a ham for over 46 years. YOU figure out how many
solar peaks I've been through (hint: they occur about every 11 years).

But then we also know you're not a ham.


Hi Jerry,

I too am an old duffer. I got my license in 1955. I am 71 now and still
in good health. Has to be some kind of miracle there for my wife and I
both to still be in good health.

Conspiracy theories are very popular and some who have little education
jump on any that come along. I am not a big fan of conspiracy theories
myself. However, I still question the Warren report. I believe there
were other forces at work beyond Oswald. A lot of nutters confuse
magnetic pole reversal with actual reversal of our rotational poles. Of
course that would be catastrophic and makes much more interesting reading.

Anyway, back to ham radio. I have certainly seen a lot of different
propagation conditions on many bands in my lifetime. I can remember when
I was 12 and could use very low power, read that as 10 watts on CW and
talk to the world. My equipment was very primitive. My first receiver
was a Knight kit space spanner. A regenerative receiver. I had to mow
lawns and clear brush to buy my equipment or the parts to build
equipment and it was a lot of work just gathering 10 dollars together. I
still remember when I did my first single transistor radio. The
transistor was a Raytheon CK722 that cost me 7 dollars. I treasured that
little germanium transistor like it was gold.

When I was 13, I discovered how to make alcohol in my home built still.
I found that far more profitable. I worked my way up to a Halicrafters
SX100 and a Multi-Elmac transmitter with a home made power supply. I
felt like this was the Cadillac of ham gear at the time. Unfortunately,
after a couple of years, the sheriff discovered who was selling all the
moonshine in our county. I was lucky. I just got yelled at and had to
sink all my moonshine equipment in our lake. I was devastated. I only
thought of myself as an entrepreneur. There I was 14, and jobless. I
finally got a job driving truck when I turned 16 after school to support
my rather expensive habit. I was kinda like a junky. There was always
more equipment to want and buy. When I finally graduated from high
school I had more equipment than was ever necessary to operate on the
ham bands. I was an obsessed teenager.

W8EZI formerly WN7EZI

On 7/10/2014 11:08 AM, Dogon wrote:
When you thought you had seen it all, this crap appears.
Sun spots above the 200 but no dx conditions.


That sure ended quick!

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/...han-a-century/

Mikek

Today's sunspot count is '0'. ? How long will this sudden honesty last ?

One could argue if what i claim is true, the bands would be dead. And they are !
The evidence is at your face: the 80 mtr, 49 mtr en even the 31 mtr bands are dead.
This never ever happened before. The sw spectrum below 10 Mc's is completely dead.
A tell tale of what is to come.

If you are technical you should ask : why ? The answer is A rougue planet
named Nibiru. Look for 'Nibiru orbit.' This thing has such a massive magnetic field
around it that disrupts earth's field. Thia planet is darker then coal so no astronomer
can observe this. If so it won't make the Massive Media Blackout !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AW-z...layer_embedded

Thanks to the stupid reacting shills here who made me angy !

Strange news on spacewheater yesterday.: (just a few days after i wrote my posting!)
"WHERE DID ALL THE SUNSPOTS GO? This week, solar activity has sharply declined.
There is only one numbered sunspot on the Earth-facing side of the sun, and it is so
small you might have trouble finding it."

Ofcourse i have collected a lot of sun pics evidence, who looked blank, with a spotcount on
that day of '125' and other nonsense.

















..



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:02:02 +0200, "Dogon" wrote:

Strange news on spacewheater yesterday.: (just a few days after i wrote my posting!)
"WHERE DID ALL THE SUNSPOTS GO? This week, solar activity has sharply declined.
There is only one numbered sunspot on the Earth-facing side of the sun, and it is so
small you might have trouble finding it."

Aren't you suspicious why the sunspot count dropped so suddenly? It's
because the sunspots were never there. Someone cleaned the lenses on
the sunspot counting helioscopes thus removing all the sunspots. In
the past, it was traditional to clean the lenses every 11 years, but I
guess they're not following that schedule any more. Most likely, the
helioscope keepers were on summer vacation, and their temporary
replacements didn't know any better. However, not to worry. The
sunspot count should return to normal as the dust accumulates.

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

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:02:02 +0200, "Dogon" wrote:

Strange news on spacewheater yesterday.: (just a few days after i wrote my posting!)
"WHERE DID ALL THE SUNSPOTS GO? This week, solar activity has sharply declined.
There is only one numbered sunspot on the Earth-facing side of the sun, and it is so
small you might have trouble finding it."

Aren't you suspicious why the sunspot count dropped so suddenly? It's
because the sunspots were never there. Someone cleaned the lenses on
the sunspot counting helioscopes thus removing all the sunspots. In
the past, it was traditional to clean the lenses every 11 years, but I
guess they're not following that schedule any more. Most likely, the
helioscope keepers were on summer vacation, and their temporary
replacements didn't know any better. However, not to worry. The
sunspot count should return to normal as the dust accumulates.


Yep, up to 26 already.


--
Jim Pennino

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 17:11:27 -0000, wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:02:02 +0200, "Dogon" wrote:

Strange news on spacewheater yesterday.: (just a few days after i wrote my posting!)
"WHERE DID ALL THE SUNSPOTS GO? This week, solar activity has sharply declined.
There is only one numbered sunspot on the Earth-facing side of the sun, and it is so
small you might have trouble finding it."

Aren't you suspicious why the sunspot count dropped so suddenly? It's
because the sunspots were never there. Someone cleaned the lenses on
the sunspot counting helioscopes thus removing all the sunspots. In
the past, it was traditional to clean the lenses every 11 years, but I
guess they're not following that schedule any more. Most likely, the
helioscope keepers were on summer vacation, and their temporary
replacements didn't know any better. However, not to worry. The
sunspot count should return to normal as the dust accumulates.

Yep, up to 26 already.

Ok, the official lens cleaners are back from vacation. Let the
counting continue.

Looks like there's some disagreement on predictions. The SM (standard
method) predicts a drop, while the CM (combined method) predicts a
slightly rising number:
http://sidc.oma.be/silso/kalmansmcm
http://sidc.oma.be/silso/ssngraphics
Toss a coin.

Just for fun, I grabbed the data files for the recent monthly numbers
from:
http://sidc.oma.be/silso/INFO/issndheminfocsv.php
http://sidc.oma.be/silso/datafiles
and plotted them from 2000 to May 2014 without smoothing, filtering,
tweaking, or massaging. Well, I added a second order polynomial trend
line, which predicts an increase:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/sunspots/Sunspots-2000-2014.jpg
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/sunspots/Sunspots-2000-2014.xls
Maybe toss another coin. The scatter plot shows huge variations from
month to month. I would expect much the same for daily variations. If
the sunspot number hits zero occasionally, I would not be surprised.
Trying to predict propagation from a single daily point is not going
to be easy.

Disclaimer: I know little about sunspots and this is all new to me.



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

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:30:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/sunspots/Sunspots-2000-2014.jpg
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/sunspots/Sunspots-2000-2014.xls

No brain today. The graph is the DAILY sunspot count, not monthly.
Sorry(tm).
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 7/19/2014 1:43 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:30:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/sunspots/Sunspots-2000-2014.jpg
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/sunspots/Sunspots-2000-2014.xls

No brain today. The graph is the DAILY sunspot count, not monthly.
Sorry(tm).



Picture from 7-18,


http://www.latimes.com/science/scien...718-story.html



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com