1. The same variations of amplitudes (located in red from A to G by our care).
2. The same double peaks on the summits of amplitude.
3. The Maunder minimum.
4. The Dalton minimum.
5. And now the most extraordinary abnormality: the Solar cycle is ahead about 200 years with regard to the cycle of OJ 287. Everything takes place as if the Sun was the conductor.

We communicated at once this discovery to Dr. Jean-Claude Pecker (CDF), to Dr. Christian Bizouard (Paris Observatory), to Dr Valery Kotov ( KrAO) and a little later to Dr. Guy Artzner (IAS and SAF).

1. It's just chance that played us this joke..
   
   The response (Fig. Below) were brought to us by Dr. Valery Kotov.
   

   It is the cross-correlation function r (d) of the maximum amplitudes of the peaks in the Wolf cycle of the sun and the brightness in the Blazar OJ 287. On the horizontal axis, the time change is expressed as numbers of cycles of 11 years . The examination of the two curves (and Fig.0 Fig.1) shows very strong similarities. Between the peaks of the two curves, the correlation is r = 0.88. With probability p = 1 - 3%. Note that such probability is quite exceptional in Astronomy. One can, in these circumstances, talk of near certainty. We reject, at least, for the time being, this objection.

2. The cycle of OJ 287 is almost stable, that is not the case of the solar cycle. Thus there is no link between both.
   
   To compare a cycle based on electromagnetic waves (OJ 287) and that stemming from a counting of sunspots is difficult, not to say incongruous. We admit generally that the solar cycle is of the order of 11,7 years. It is based on the regular counting of sunspots reached the surface of the sun. In these conditions very sly who can say when a cycle began and when it finished. As far as we do not see what takes place at the level of the "floor", even underneath that is below the convective zone. What time is it necessary for a spot to go up to the surface? Because of the convection, the turbulences, the Coriolis effect and the variations of the field magnetism, this time is very changeable. Furthermore we can have some hysteresis phenomenon. You should not forget it to understand this variation and these delays between the real solar cycle which is invisible for us and what shows the solar cycle. On the other hand the duration of every cycle is an average which was certainly established, with so rigour as it is possible, but only on 24 historically observed cycles. So, we will admit it, is a little bit just for having a correct measure of the real solar cycle.
   Now every period of the solar cycle is contained between 8 and 14 years. It gives us only the lower and superior limits of the real solar cycle.
   We will take 11.8 years as real value. We will see farther the reasons of this choice which can seem arbitrary a priori.
   
   For all these reasons, we can only reject this objection.

2. It isn't possible that the Sun which by definition is credited with only one solar mass, can act at a distance of 3,5 billion lightyears on a black hole having 18 billion solar masses.
   
   It's true, it is not physically possible! But this tends to prove that this quasar is not at the distance which gives us its red shift. And thus that the mass of the black hole is much lower than it was estimated. This quasar would really be at a distance roughly of 200 / 2 = 100 ly .
   
   Let us note here that this distance measurement is based on the temporal gap between a signal emit from OJ 287 on one hand, and that one emit from the Sun.
   
   But if OJ 287 is for this distance then why Hipparcos did not discover movements concerning this object and why its distance was not measured? The answer is simple: the quasars which, "by nature are cosmological objects", were excluded from the observations or eliminated from the published data. It is probably the reason for which we lost two decades for the discovery of the nature of OJ 287!
   Let us hope that with GAIA, we will not make the same kind of errors.
   
     §  Published in November, 2013, a document "CNES - GAIA - Dossier d'information - Arpenteur de la Galaxie. " confirms us that in the experiment Hipparcos, the observations were targeted from a catalog of known objects and thus that quasars were excluded from the observations. (See in page 17)
   
   This object, which we can suppose that it would be a microquasar, situated in our galaxy at a distance equal or lower than 100 ly. GAIA thus should give us a measure better than 0,1 %.
   As to say what's the physical phenomenon allowing the sun to act on this object, it is necessary to admit that we know nothing about it for the moment.
   Let us note that we have several hypotheses which would explain all the observations.

1. One or several astronomers who drew the curve of luminosity of OJ 287 would be quacks. They would have used some datas extracted from the sun observations.
   
   It is impossible. If sometimes there are quacks in the sciences in general, this does not exist in astronomy. Everybody knows that.
   
   Thus we reject, with the biggest firmness, this hypothesis.

2. An astrophysicist, who we subjected this observation, made us the following remark, we quote her:
   "Figures underline effectively a possible visible effect of the sun variability on the recording of the luminosity of the Quasar.
   As any observation datum, this recording must be corrected by side effects before deducting from it some physical sizes. It is the correction made beforehand that would allow to deduct the distance from it which it would be necessary to analyze".
   
   We are not at the source of the data concerning OJ 287. On a duration greater than 200 years it would be totally impossible for us. Thus we are in the obligation to have confidence on the authors of these statements. Especially they are professional astronomers who certainly took all the required precautions.
   Let us imagine all the same a moment when the sun activity would echo on the transparency, or the opacity of one clouds of gas and\or dusts in the sun environment (Zodiacal light for example). It effectively could give the illusion of an activity of the quasar according to the cycle of 11 years. Without we should observe then also this phenomenon on many of the other objects near the quasar (along the ecliptic in this case) and also somewhere else. But rightly no one observed this. But still serious, the temporal abnormality (200 years) would always be there. Thus we can abandon this hypothesis.
   We conclude, from this, that  the authors of OJ 287 statements activity made correctly their work.
   
   For information, before speaking about OJ 287, to whoever it is, we made search so exhaustive as possible of the objects having a cycle similar to that of the sun. Result: there is little, for example:
   61 Cygni B [10,2 years (Chromospheric activity)]
   SO 102 [11,5 years (Period of revolution around Sag A)]
   
   Except recent change, the sun is not even considered as a variable star. In catalogs, it does not appear there, regrettably.
   
   Thus this objection can only be rejected.

3.  A third object X would be the real conductor acting at the same moment on the Sun and on OJ 287.
   
   It's a likely hypothesis which we have to examine.

Where is X?
If it is in the galaxy, then is needed a rather massive object to emit enough intense gravitational or electromagnetic waves to act on the sun and on OJ 287.
These waves also have to have a period of 11.8 years. We know no object which has these criteria. We could think to Saggitarius A, Because this black hole is approximately 4 million of solar masses. But this object, as much as we know, does not emit the expected signal.
Thus, until otherwise, Saggitarius A is not compatible with X. If it was, then OJ 287 would be at a distance about 116 ly of the Sun. (See picture opposite).
A very massive star, a neutron star, a pulsar or a magnetar? The problem remains the same, it is necessary to find the cycle of 11.8 years.
We can also say that if X was in the galaxy, we would observe a big number of stars which would have, as the sun, a cycle of 11.8 years. But it is not the case. We can only reject this hypothesis.

Is there a position for X which would be compatible with the red shift of OJ 287?

Yes, we can demonstrate that there is one, but only one (See plan opposite).
X would be at a greater distance than that one of OJ 287,  It would act in parallel on this last one and on the Sun. As there would be an angular gap (very small) in their relative positions, Then we would have an optical path difference in the observed signals. The temporal difference which would result from would be about 200 years.
But there also we should observe numerous stars which would have this famous cycle of 11.8 years. That is not the case.

Should this assumption be rejected? No because it is the only one that is compatible with the red shift of OJ 287, and with the expected observations of GAÏA, which would possibly demonstrate either the distance of 3.5 x 109 al or a distance of the order of 100 al.
In all cases, it will be necessary to search, around the sun, for stars having a magnetic cycle of the order of 11.8 years.