ComfortMyPeople

@Mic Drop,
I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled. 
But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc.. 
The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??"
Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.   
Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence.
Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)

Saturn was in front of the Swallow. The 2nd, in the morning, a rainbow stretched in the west. Night of the 3rd, the moon was 2 cubits in front of [….] So, this is (according to Furuli) May 2, 588 BCE, for the 1st of the month, and therefore May 3rd, 588 for the 2nd of the month. Saturn is in the same position on both days so it won't matter which. Here is the Swallow which is only visible just before sunrise, and isn't above the horizon to see in the evening.
Looking East at just before sunrise there are two planets around the Swallow, but one is Venus and the other is Mercury. Saturn is not in the sky, and won't be visible until long after the Swallow is gone.
Then we check 568 and see the picture in the second image below. This time both Saturn and the Swallow are in the picture. And Saturn is in front of it, rising above the horizon before the Swallow. A clear win for 568. A clear loss for 588.
This position repeats about every 30 years. -626/-625, -596/-595, -567/-566, -538/-537, etc. 

@xero, You probably noticed by clicking on the Stellarium date/time settings that you can quickly change the view one hour at a time, or one day, or one month, or even one year at a time. In doing this you can quickly see that the moon traverses over nearly the same path from month to month, and therefore readings from one year will seem to recur a few months later and you can often find pretty much the same positions of stars and moon every few years. So it's not surprising that some readings for 588 will also be found in 584 and 580 and 578 and 562 etc., etc. That problem cuts both ways.
That's why lunar readings are not the best test for the kind of comparison being done here. They will not likely appear all that definitive even when the readings fit 568 so much better than 588. 
But some of the planetary observations do not repeat for hundreds of years at a time. That makes them much more reliable for this type of comparison between two proposed years.
So it occurred to me that I don't have the same reason Furuli did to skip the more reliable planetary observations just so that he could focus on the more flexible lunar observations. 
The Watchtower followed Furuli's trick by summarily dismissing the more reliable planetary positions like this:  
*** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
In addition to the aforementioned eclipse, there are 13 sets of lunar observations on the tablet and 15 planetary observations. . . . Because of the superior reliability of the lunar positions, researchers have carefully analyzed these 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956.
It is actually very obvious why Furuli chose to dismiss the more reliable observations, and call them less reliable. But I won't cherry-pick observations and will go back and include ones that Furuli (and therefore the Watchtower) skipped.
So the next one for me will actually go back to Line 2 that was skipped:
Saturn was in front of the Swallow. The 2nd, in the morning, a rainbow stretched in the west. Night of the 3rd, the moon was 2 cubits in front of [….]

…

There was another piece to the observation for Ayyaru 1 of Year 37, that doesn't really favor either year, where the moon is said to have traversed 4 cubits below β Geminorum .
… 4 cubits below β Geminorum
However, instead of 4 cubits, this was 4.48 cubits in 588 BCE and 3.41 cubits in 568 BCE. Both off by about half a cubit out of 4. I suspect that's because they tried to estimate about where it had been after the sun set, because you can't really see stars while the sun is still there in the sky. 
In both cases (both year readings) they are about the same angle away on either side of the 4 cubit measure, so both of these have been considered "borderline" in terms of accuracy. I have taken a picture with the sun setting in 568 with the "cursor" around beta-Geminorum (the brightest star in the Gemini [Twins] constellation). Of the two main stars in that constellation it's the one on the left. You can see the proximity to the moon in the picture too. While the sun is in the sky, no stars are seen, not even for a couple of minutes after sunset if you are looking  to that part of the sky. However. it could still refer to the visibility right after sunset. In that case recall that the moon is already out of the picture completely in 588 as seen in the video in my last post. So it would have been a difficult if not impossible observation in 488. But in 568, you can see there is actually the possibility of seeing the moon and Gemini together. Even though this makes it better for 568, I don't make too much of this particular fact because it's also possible that the Babylonians already knew where that constellation was, having just seen how the moon set with it from the night before, and it would have been easily confirmed anyway a minute or so after the moon also set. 

Below is also 568, but after the sun has set. A much more likely reading than June 1 588 BCE.

And on the actual month of Ayyar 1, thirty days earlier, which Furuli didn't use, the numbers for 588 would have been so far off they'd be off the charts. Even if Furuli had used the correct day (June 2 instead of June 1) for this particular wrong month, the angled distance would would be MUCH further away than those 4 cubits. I included a picture of the difference below, where it appears that the moon is several times further away from Gemini (Great Twins) on June 2 588 BCE: [Stellarium puts a tree on the horizon in just the wrong spot or I would move forward another 10 minutes or so to let the sky get darker for a more visible reading .]

, 

@xero, So to review so far:
 
1. It's pretty clear that the 1st of the 13 lunar readings is an excellent fit for 568 and does not fit 588 at all. 
2. The 2nd of the 13 readings does not fit either 568 or 588 and has long been considered to be a copyist's error: a 9 for an 8.
2A. This one was near perfect for 568 and totally impossible for 588, even if you allow the Furuli date manipulations. Furuli skipped this one for reasons that might be pretty obvious.  [Nisanu 14:  On the 14th. one god was seen with the other  Sunrise to moonset 4°]  
So where were we? Line 8:
3. Line 8: Ayyaru 1 = June 1, 588 BCE / May 22, 568 BCE Moon crescent ‘thick,’ visible ‘while the sun stood there’ … 
It's another first of the month test. It appears to address the very issue that the Babylonians had at the first of every month because a new moon is nearly impossible to see on it's first "existing" day [the beginning of the waxing crescent] because it isn't thick enough yet, and it is invariably too close to the sun, and therefore only visible, if at all, just a few minutes after sundown, when the moon also sets right next to the sun. The very fact that it is written this way implies, of course, that the moon was thick enough on this day to see just before the sun went down. That indicates a far enough distance (angle) from the sun and just enough "thickness" referring to the percentage of the crescent. 
To me -- and this is not important at all to the reading -- it implies something additional. It's a comment defending why the first of the month was started today and not yesterday. Perhaps there was cloud cover yesterday and someone had already argued that it might have actually been visible behind the clouds yesterday and maybe one astronomer even claimed to have detected it. It basically says that we couldn't confirm it yesterday, but today it was thick enough to see even while the sun was still visible. 
In hindsight, we now have the calculations to show that it was nigh near impossible to see that previous day, and that they got it right. Astronomers have also conducted numerous experiments to find the least possible crescent thickness and smallest angle from the sun to determine what was possible. And there are enough dated eclipses to verify exactly when the first of the month was counted just by counting backward from the eclipse date. If the eclipse happened on the 14th we know the exact conditions they saw on the 1st and the day before when the crescent couldn't be seen. If the eclipse happened on the 15th we know the exact conditions that first allowed them to see the new moon crescent, etc.  
So now let's compare the two. 
Furuli still claims of course that the start of the second month, Ayyaru 1, is on June 1st, using his unprecedented, if not impossible calendar shift. In reality Ayyaru 1 started a month earlier. But even giving Furuli the benefit of the doubt, he still fails to find a better reading in 588 than in 568. Here's why:
The first short video is Furuli's reading on June 1st. The moon (with the red blinking cursor) is at about the thinnest possible to be able to detect, but also much too close to the sun for Babylonians astronomers. Maybe they set a record with this one and were able to see it for those few seconds after the sun set. But the tablet says the sun was still visible too.
The second video is for 568. Note that here, the angle to the sun creates enough distance to match other known verified readings and the moon is a day older and therefore thick enough. Slightly thicker than some known, first new moon readings. 
Even if one tried to argue exceptional conditions and eyesight, and perhaps some additional viewing instruments we don't know about that were unable to detect the moon under similar conditions at other times, we still have a much better reading in 568, and we have the very fact that the tablet makes special note of the thickness of the crescent, not the unusual thinness that Furuli would effectively be arguing for here. 
O'maly used software that allowed for "pictures" of the difference in the moon's magnitude at the different times:
Here is the "thick"crescent on Furuli's date:
 
Here is the thick crescent in 568, almost exactly 3 times thicker in 568 than in 588:

 

6-1-588sundown.mp4 5-22-568sundown.mp4

Yes. I criticized your post. I would not have criticized it if it wasn't completely wrong though. I have agreed and upvoted several of your posts that were correct. But I will never avoid that question. Ever. No matter how many times you pretend that I have. That's why I have always answered it directly multiple times, even though you've been repeating the same question so many times, and repeating the false claim that I avoided it so many times. 
OK. That's good. That probably wasn't a dodge. Except that you have never explained why you sometimes imply that 607 is the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar and sometimes you imply that it is the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It can't be both the 8th and the 19th. Sometimes it seems that you are trying to be clever in that you never write 19/18 or 19th/18th but you always write 19/8th, and then highlight that Nebuchadnezzar may have completed the destruction of the temple in what the Babylonian Chronicles call his 8th year, and continually point out that the 19th year of the Babylonian Chronicles is missing. You have strongly implied, if not stated, that you think the Temple was destroyed in his 8th year. [You asked why he wouldn't complete the destruction in that year if even Wiseman says it was a possible year that we could say Jerusalem "fell" - along with 587.]  (You also often imply that perhaps this was the 19th year of ANOTHER Nebuchadnezzar, perhaps another person associated more directly with Nabopolassar's time.) Since you have not yet been clear about this, I assume it's because you don't want to be clear, and I won't push the issue. 
I think that instead of clarifying, you sometimes prefer to laugh derisively at all those who aren't able to figure out exactly what you are hiding. 
And, I think everyone would be happy to see that so-called "careful analysis of the tablet data." 
No you're not. You are falsely pretending that you are still waiting even though I have said multiple times that Jerusalem is not mentioned in any tablet related to Nebuchadnezzar other than the known, existing, non-missing portion of the Babylonian Chronicles. But I'll be happy to say it again with specific reference to VAT 4956: The destruction of Jerusalem is definitely not mentioned in VAT 4956. And yes, I know, you are "still waiting."
 
 

If you highlighted that sentence to point out your so-called 19-year cycle, then you are most likely extremely confused about the Metonic cycle. It became standardized after the Neo-Babylonian period so that it was well known which years had the extra month, and whether it was added after the 6th month, or the 12th month. Very few specific months were attested in the reigns of kings prior to Nabopolassar, such as during the years of Nabonassar. But from Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father), in all those years, only 12 were still unattested at the time P&D first published in 1942. And P&D made best guesses for them. Since then, more of those tablets were published and the table is now even more accurate. 
A Metonic cycle does not start in only a specific year to repeat 19 years later. It starts EVERY year and repeats 19 years later. For example:
A Metonic cycle started in 608 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 607 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 606 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 605 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 604 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. ... A Metonic cycle started in 590 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 589 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 588 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 587 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 586 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. Technically you don't have to start counting them from the beginning of a year, you could start them in the middle, or any particular day of the year, although it's most convenient to start from a new moon or a full moon to help count the lunations.
Another one started the day you were born, and would repeat when you turn 19 and 38 and 57 etc Another one started on the day I was born in 1957 and would repeat in 1976, 1995, etc. There is nothing special about the Metonic cycle for discovering or helping to discover a specific BCE date for a King's reign, or historical event. It just refers to the fact that the number of solar days is 365+ in a year and the number of lunar days at 12 months to a year would be 354+. So you can't add a full lunar month every year to make up the difference, but if you add an intercalary months every two or three years you will probably have added enough (+/- one lunar month) during those 19 years, to synch up the number of days in lunar years to the number in solar years much more exactly because there are almost exactly 235 lunar months in 19 solar years It's only off by a few hours.
P&D (that you quoted from) actually proves that they did NOT standardize on a set way to take advantage of the Metonic cycle, especially during Nabopolassar's and Nebuchadnezzar's reigns. But they had no choice but to synch up sooner or later, otherwise the lunar calendar would drift completely away from the solar and you'd be having the New Year 11 days earlier every year. Your spring celebration would soon be in winter, then fall, then summer, etc. You couldn't make a "planting" or "harvest" calendar.

It doesn't fit because that's not Nisanu 1; it's Ayyaru 1. Furuli just called it Nisanu 1 because otherwise he'd have almost nothing for the year 588. In fact, it's not really even Ayyaru 1, because he also had to fake the day and start it one day before Ayyaru 1. It's really Nisanu 30 of 588 BCE.
Check out the ACTUAL Nisanu 1, 588 BCE and see what you get. It's nowhere near.

You'd think so, right? But originally Armageddon was going to end in 1914. When it no longer looked like that was going to happen on time, that "end" was later pushed to 1915. But that's why I said 1914 is "part of Armageddon." You should read "The Battle of Armageddon" which was also called "The Day of Vengeance" by C.T.Russell. I'm sure you can find the pieces and put it together yourself.
". . . the Day of Vengeance ... will end in October, 1914" -- The Battle of Armageddon / The Day of Vengeance, page 547. "Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word." The Time Is At Hand, page 101. And the Time is at Hand, on page 99, says:
...

Note to self: One more move of the goal posts should be expected.

*** w56 12/15 p. 755 par. 11 Telling the Good News from Day to Day ***
At the start of the great tribulation upon Satan’s organization in 1914 all such people felt merely the “beginning of pangs of distress,” 
*** w51 3/15 p. 164 Time Better than Money ***
When Christ was enthroned, in 1914, great tribulation was started against Satan and his wicked world organization. If it had then proceeded to completion, no flesh would have been saved. But for the sake of human flesh that tribulation was shortened or cut short, to allow a period of time for men to take in and give out knowledge of the established heavenly kingdom,
*** ws13 7/15 pp. 3-4 par. 3 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
In the past, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 when World War I started. We thought that Jehovah “cut short” those days in 1918 when the war ended so that the remaining anointed ones on earth could preach the good news to all nations. (Matthew 24:21, 22) After that preaching work would be completed, we expected that Satan’s world would be destroyed. So we thought that there were three parts to the great tribulation. It would begin in 1914, it would be interrupted in 1918, . . .
The "Armageddon" error was fixed many years before the "Great Tribulation" part was fixed.
And for good measure, it should also be added that the 1914 doctrine was NOT to show the start of Christ's reign in Heaven. For about 40 years after the 1914 doctrine was "established," Christ's reign in Heaven had started in 1878. These ideas were repeated into the 1930's, and parts of it into the 1940's. 1878 was still considered a valid prophetic date during the first Tuesday night Book Studies I ever remember attending. We still studied "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" when I was 7 years old. All this was well after 1914. It was just a few years after the famous 1922 Cedar Point convention when the WTS dropped the first hints that the new date for Christ's reign might change to 1914.
 In 1878 God’s favor was withdrawn from the nominal systems. From that time on . . . . Do you believe it? Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874? Do you believe that during that time he has conducted his harvest work? Do you believe that he has had during that time a faithful and wise servant through whom he directed his work and the feeding of the household of faith? Do you believe that the Lord is now in his temple, judging the nations of earth? Do you believe that the King of glory has begun his reign? Then back to the field, . . .  This is the day of all days. Behold, the King reigns! You are his publicity agents. Therefore advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom. 

You keep implying that the 1914 doctrine is there to prove that the GT, Big A had begun then, and God's Kingdom has already been "established" -- that the doctrine claims all this has already occurred. 
Originally, the doctrine was there to prove that 1914 was part of Armageddon and the start of the Great Tribulation. But that part was dropped many years ago.
<bloviation> ** begins
However, I'll give you the part of about God's Kingdom:
*** w22 July p. 3 The Kingdom Is in Place! ***
. . . a prophecy that helps us discern when the Kingdom was established, . . . Read Daniel 4:10-17. The “seven times” represent a period of 2,520 years. That time period began in 607 B.C.E. when the Babylonians removed the last king from Jehovah’s throne in Jerusalem. It ended in 1914 C.E. when Jehovah enthroned Jesus—“the one who has the legal right”—as King of God’s Kingdom.—Ezek. 21:25-27.
Even here, the Watchtower plays with some nuanced semantics between the expression "established" and "fully established." There is even a sense given that the old Russellites were wrong for believing that the kingdom would be "fully established' in 1914, although it's a bit ambiguous as to whether they were right or not:
*** w84 4/15 p. 3 1914—A Focal Point ***
The March 1880 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence described two events of earthshaking importance that were looked forward to as due to happen in 1914: “‘The Times of the Gentiles’ extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then.” Hence, many Bible Students expected God’s Kingdom to be fully established in that year.

*** w84 12/1 p. 16 par. 7 Keep Ready! ***
Thus, although he would be ‘present’ and his Kingdom would already have been established, both he and his Kingdom would still have to “come” 
 
 Up until about 1975, the Watchtower always made the bold claim that the Kingdom had already been "fully established." It was about then, that the phrase was only used ambiguously, which I remember once caused a minor problem in the translation departments when they were translating a booklet. I think it was called "One World, One Government Under God's Kingdom," or something like that. The publications started saying "established" in 1914 but only "fully established" when the new heavens and new earth were here, and that became the explanation for the "Lord's prayer" question that came up fairly often: "Should we still pray for God's kingdom to come since it came in 1914?" 
That issue was sort of resolved in the awkward wording of a new song that came out in 2014:
*** sjj song 22 The Kingdom Is in Place—Let It Come! ***
The Kingdom Is in Place—Let It Come!
BTW, I couldn't find the wording of that particular 1975 booklet in the Watchtower Library, but I found something quite similar which shows the kind of verb tense ambiguity they were going for. It's similar to the 1984 quote above:
*** w70 10/15 p. 629 par. 17 The Kingdom of Salvation Available Today ***
Former kings, emperors, presidents, governors and dictators on being resurrected may not expect to take over automatically and resume ruling over their onetime subjects or fellow citizens. The old system of things under the Satanic “god of this system of things” is no longer in operation. God’s new system of things under his Messianic kingdom of the heavens is fully established over all the earth. Of necessity, it will have organization of all those on earth . . . 
Note that it looks like (1970) the Watchtower was still saying it was already "fully established" but it's couched in a discussion of the near future, because the previous sentence says: "The old system of things . . . is no longer in operation." 
In previous decades, it was just claimed outright that it was already "fully established" in 1914:
*** w60 1/1 p. 29 par. 9 Part 29—“Your Will Be Done on Earth” ***
. . . In that year [1914] the kingdom of God was to be fully established in the heavens to see that His will should be done on earth. 
*** w51 10/1 p. 583 “Happy Are the Eyes That Behold” ***
Our eyes are far more blessed than even theirs, because we can see by the fulfillment of Bible prophecy that Jehovah’s royal government by his Christ is now fully established
</bloviation> ** ends

Despite my initial resolve not to be interested in Babylonian Astronomy, clay tablets, and conflicting dates circa 500bce to 600 bce, I find myself fascinated that You Guys find it of sufficient interest to pour over it in such detail. Perhaps there is something here that I am missing.
A rough analogy, I suppose would be like Quantum Physics, which I find fascinating, but unknowable, and can only be guessed at by trying to visualize what an esoteric equation is really representing in reality. Also far beyond my ability to comprehend, but at least I can see a practical use for quantum studies. 
Nowadays you need a good understanding of Quantum  Physics to understand Astronomy, or solid state electronics, or even how light behaves. This has PRACTICAL applications, such as Smart Phones, GPS, FTL communications, etc. We use this each and every day in contemporary society.
The people back in Babylonian times have been dead for 2600 and more years, and what they wrote in clay mud with sticks is not relevant anymore.
I can see enjoying knowing, so there is that, but if the subtext of all of this research is to be able to prove that the Great Tribulation, and Armageddon, and God’s Kingdom established has already occurred … it’s a complete waste of time.
You can stand in the street and look around and see those things have not yet happened.
You know, Jonah was super ticked off that he did all that work, hardship and danger, and God changed his mind about Nineveh.
At least he didn’t try to convince people they had been destroyed invisibly.
 

These are taken from Ann O'maly's fact-check against a claim by someone who tried a slightly different method than Furuli's interpretations. This is why a few of the other readings were included below. The 13 referred to in the Watchtower are matched to Furuli's original list, numbered in red. Only the astronomically relevant info is summarized/paraphrased.
1. Line 1: Nisanu 1 = May 2, 588 BCE/ April 22, 568 BCE Moon visible behind Bull of Heaven (Taurus)
2. Line 3: Nisanu 9 = May 10, 588 BCE / April 30, 568 BCE Beginning of the night, Moon 1 cubit in front of β Virginis
x. Line 4: Nisanu 14 = May 16, 588 BCE / May 6, 568 BCE Sunrise to moonset 4°
3. Line 8: Ayyaru 1 = June 1, 588 BCE / May 22, 568 BCE Moon crescent ‘thick,’ visible ‘while the sun stood there’ … … 4 cubits below β Geminorum ... Moonrise to sunrise, 23°, not observed
x. Line 11: Ayyaru 26 = June 27, 588 BCE / June 17, 568 BCE Moonrise to sunrise, 23°, not observed
4. Line 12: Simanu 1 = June 30, 588 BCE / June 20, 568 BCE Moon visible behind Cancer, ‘thick’ crescent …… Sunset to moonset 20°
5. Line 14: Simanu 5 = July 4, 588 BCE / June 24, 568 BCE Beginning of the night, Moon passed east 1 cubit β Virginis
6. Line 15: Simanu 8 = July 7, 588 BCE / June 27, 568 BCE First part of night, Moon 2½ cubits below β Librae
7. Line 16: Simanu 10 = July 9, 588 BCE / June 29, 568 BCE First part of the night, Moon balanced 3½ cubits above α Scorpii
x. Line 17: Simanu 15 = July 15, 588 BCE / July 5, 568 BCE Sunrise to moonset: 7°30', ‘omitted’ lunar eclipse
reverse:
8. Line 5’: Šabatu 1 = February 22, 587 BCE / February 12, 567 BCE Moon visible in the Swallow (southern Pisces) …… Sunset to moonset: 14°30'
9. Line 6’: Šabatu 6 = Feb. 27, [587 BCE / February 17, 567 BCE] First part of the night, Moon surrounded by halo; Pleiades, the Bull of Heaven, and the Chariot [stood in it .... ]
10. Line 7’: Šabatu ? = March 4, 587 BCE / February 22, 567 BCE α Leonis balanced 1 cubit below Moon
x. Line 8’: Šabatu 13 or 14 = March 8 or 9, 587 BCE / February 25 or 26, 567 BCE Sunrise to moonset, 17° (text: 7), not watched
11. Line 12’: Addaru 1 = March 24, 587 BCE / March 14, 567 BCE Moon visible behind Aries ‘while the sun stood there’ … … measured sunset to moonset 25°
12. Line 13’: Addaru 2 = March 25, 587 BCE / March 15, 567 BCE First part of the night,41 Moon balanced 4 cubits below η Tauri (Alcyone)
x. Line 14’: Addaru 7 = March 30, 587 BCE/ March 20, 567 BCE Moon surrounded by halo. Praesepe and α Leonis [stood] in [it ....]
13. Line 16’: Addaru 12 = April 5, 587 BCE / March 26, 567 BCE Sunrise to moonset, 1°30’.
 

Sure!
In the next post I will point out which items from both the front and the back were cherry-picked to see if they could fit 588 instead of 568.
The pictures, and translation below are taken from the following site:
https://www.lavia.org/english/Archivo/VAT4956en.htm 
[After this post I will copy a simpler translation for reference that also includes the theorized Julian dates if you are comparing between 568 and 588 BCE]
 

A typical translation is here, for the obverse side. You will see 18 lines, although the last two, as you can see from the picture, are mostly missing. 

 

 

I was afraid to look but when I did I realized the video had been filmed in front of a live studio ostrich.

For anyone interested in the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology and the support from tablets, the following site looks to be fairly comprehensive. Just looking at one page here might help demolish the misconception that VAT 4956 is somehow important, and that somehow finding errors on it hurts the accepted chronology:
Here's the primary page I am referring to:
https://www.jhalsey.com/jerusalem-book/standard/timeline.html
available as a pdf, too:
For those afraid to look, I will provide some snippets:

Of course they do provide such evidence that discredits the Watchtower's claims concerning these dates. Why do you think the Watchtower Society is the biggest opposer of all Neo-Babylonian tablets? Why do you think every article about them is written to sow seeds of doubt?
You can interpret it however you like. Or you can throw the whole thing out. It changes nothing. It's just another line of independent evidence that helps people put a BCE date on all the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. But it's hardly the only one. In another post I'll provide the list that "J Halsey" added to the Internet. I don't know who he is and I never saw this until today. It seems fairly complete. 
I have never heard anyone use 18 year cycles or 19 year cycles to validate any related conjectures. But if you are saying that if we follow that pattern it intersects with 607/6, then it sounds like you might be saying that you are the example of the lengths some people are eager to go to since you are the one claiming that these patterns intersect with 607/6 BC. I do agree that it's a stretch though, because NONE of these patterns have anything to do with 607/6 BC or 587/6 or 568/7 or 588/7. 

True. As long as you believe in 1914, it doesn't matter whether you know how it was calculated.
 *** w86 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. . . .
Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include? . . . That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10) 
Technically, I have no problem with the approved association requirement, because it says it only includes "those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses." The list included more than just the 1914 doctrine, and one of those other items in the list is already partly obsolete; it included a phrase that is no longer considered Scriptural. I highlighted Revelation 11 because this is the very chapter that associates only 1260, not 2520, with the Gentile Times. 

I expect that this is true of 99% of all Witnesses. Certainly any that I speak with in the congregation would advocate for 607 BC, but the topic hardly comes up any more, and I'm certainly not going to bring it up. It's barely been mentioned in the publications since 2018, although it's been added to the extra material in the new NWT (simplified).
The Witnesses who no longer believe the Barbour/Russell version of 607 (606) are the ones who discuss the evidence in private email groups and closed forums. Not much danger of anyone changing their mind on a forum like this one.
Yes. I think that's about right. I think a lot of Witnesses believe that it's simply a matter of trusting the old Barbour/Russell 2,520, and they don't even give a thought to the fact that our doctrines have completely divorced it from the 1,260. Yet, several years ago, the very last mention of the 1,260 in the Watchtower was with the very verse in Revelation 11 that ties the 1,260 directly to the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24, and yet the Watchtower doesn't even mention that fact, only that the 1,260 "Gentile Times' number, should be measured in "days" (from December 1914 to early 1919) as opposed to the 2,520 which gets measured in years from 607 BCE to 1914 CE. I think it's a shame that so many of us actually believe it's a "Bible calculation." That's the power of indoctrination and tradition.

Very true. LOL. Besides, I already know the explanation of why you do what you do. You have inadvertently admitted it several times over the last 10+ years. It hasn't changed.
I don't need to read COJ's book. I read Furuli's book to draw my own conclusions.  I wrote my own critique after checking my own Sky5 screenshots but didn't put it anywhere but in my own notebooks. (Small parts made it to another topic on this forum.) Later I also read COJ's critique, and the critiques from a few others. The order wasn't so important, but I just didn't want to be dependent on COJ. 
Truth is I don't need VAT 4956. No one does in order to put accurate BCE dates on the Neo-Babylonian chronology or Nebuchadnezzar's reign. All it does is point to the exact same years that a couple dozen other astronomical observations on other tablets already point to. If you threw out or rejected VAT 4956 you'd get the same answer from several other tablets. And for my own purposes I have no reason to worry about what secular BCE date gets applied to any of these Neo-Babylonian reigns, or the Biblical dates in BCE either, for that matter. If the Bible didn't see fit to provide information about the BCE dates, it's clearly not part of what's necessary to keep us fully equipped for every good work. Just because something is obvious doesn't mean it's all that important.  
I've read most of COJ's GTR4 book by now, and don't see much of anything important or new. It's all been done by people before him and after him. It's impressive for an amateur to have been so careful and put it all into words that the rest of us amateurs can easily understand. I like Steele though. He is not so easy to understand, but I am impressed with his math skills and his carefulness, and that he admits clearly what we know and what we don't know. And Steele, like all the others, agrees with COJ, and indicates that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year must be 568, not 588 BCE. 
No. Of course not. I only questioned what I deliberately questioned. Not everything you said was wrong. It was the misinformation I specified that was wrong, and a couple other points too trivial to bother with.
Nope. That's why I would never falsely manipulate it or take it out of context. All I asked you is where he criticized Furuli's assertion on the earth's rotation. [I said: "What was that criticism? Where is it found?"] I suspect you might even be right, that perhaps Furuli tried to make a big deal out of Delta-T and COJ might have recognized that this is pretty meaningless if Furuli needs the same Delta-T calculations for his own theories about 588. If Furuli needed Delta-T to be so far off not to work for 568, then he would need to throw away EVERYTHING in his whole book. 
You don't need scholarly expertise to address minor errors that those with scholarly expertise already addressed. Besides, he made them easy to understand so that you could see why they were minor when you consider the overall set of points. There may easily be 3 or 4 easily recognized errors on VAT 4956. The WTS Insight book claims that another tablet is helpful and reliable for Cambyses' 7th year, when that tablet apparently has many more known errors on it that scholars have corrected. 
I'm sure that's true. That was also Stephenson's intention. Steele's intention. Sachs' and Hunger's intention. To make it unreliable you'd have to find more than just a couple of copyist's errors. The various manuscripts of the Bible show us that there have been THOUSANDS of copyists' errors just in the first early centuries in the Bible manuscripts. That doesn't make the Bible unreliable. Most of those errors are minor.
Now you're talking!! Steele, of course, agrees exactly with the dates COJ presents for the entire Neo-Babylonian period, including Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, and Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, and Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. 

I agree. You can easily collect about 5 different translations all from various sites, but they all say the same thing. The sheer number of tablets with the same terms used over and over again, and then translated into Greek, and Latin over the years, and now German and English, etc., and backed up by similar readings in Egyptian documents, and the Babylonian's own explanations in their own documents allows for a pretty good understanding. 
The snapshots of the skies are the most fun part of this, I hope you will be adding a few. I don't want to just push mine on here in case people think I'm biased, LOL. (Although if you have seen past topics I put here, you will see I have already posted dozens of "Babylonian" screen shots.) 

So, with that in mind, here I go checking the first line of the lunar positions from VAT 4956:

We know that Nisan is the start of the new year for both Jews and Babylonians, and in fact they both used the same name for the month Nisan/Nisannu (used to be Datsun, lol).
So the first question is looking for a start of a new month in a year that might be "NEB 37." People talk about the year 568 BCE [-567] and 588 BCE [-587] as possibilities, so rather than check every year, I'll see what I can see for those two years, first and then might start checking other years if these don't seem right. 
So, to an amateur like me, I might not know if Nissanu 1st is in January, February or any month all the way to December. I'll check them all, because all I have to do here is see in what month the new moon becomes visible behind the Bull constellation. I accept the idea (also found in WTS publications that it was a matter of checking for the first opportunity of the new day to see if the new moon was visible, and since the new day started at sunset, about 5:45 pm, that's the time I will start checking. 
As I scroll through the days on Stellarium, from near Babylon, Iraq starting -567/1/1 I set the time to sunset and scroll through the days.
My first new moon is on 1/23 and the Bull constellation is high in the sky and no moon visible anywhere near it. My second new moon shows up on 2/22, I scroll through the minutes to watch the sun go down and the sky get dark, from 5:30pm to 7:30pm and I see that the new moon is so close to the sun that the moon sets when the sun sets and there's no way it would be visible anyway. Besides it is in the "Swallow" constellation, still not near the Bull. Even the next day 2/23 when the moon sliver is slightly more visible and far enough behind the sun to be seen around 6:30pm, it's still in the "Swallow" not near the "Bull". The 3rd new moon I check happens on 3/23, but it's right there with the sun and sets with the sun just after 6pm. But it is getting a bit closer the Bull of Heaven, although still in front of it not behind it. Perhaps it waxes big enough on the next day so that the new month would be considered to have started on 3/24. The moon is still fairly young, meaning only a sliver is showing, and it is still ready to disappear with the sun shining in those few minutes after the sun sets. I'm not sure if it was visible or not. Even if it were, this can't be the month on the tablet because it's still too far in front of the Bull, not behind it. Still on the potential reading for March 24 to be the correct month to start Nisannu the 1st. So I've checked out the same situation from my house when the moon is new and 2.7 days old and the moon is still visible for at least an hour after the sun sets. The new month has definitely started by now, and for all I know a good astronomer might have been able to see it yesterday when it was 1.7 days old, but it was still neither behind the Bull or in front of it. This time it was right there in the middle of the Bull constellation.  see the "mp4" I attached below So on to the next month. The fourth new moon attempted is on 4/22. We must be close. Because this time, the moon almost sets with the sun meaning it was likely impossible to see the nearly non-existent sliver of the new moon, but it would have been behind the Bull, at least. So if there is good visibility "tomorrow" on 4/23, then I expect it to be the best day. Sure enough, the Bull sets with the sun, so no astronomer could see those stars in the light, but they still knew exactly where it was as the sliver of the moon appears just behind it between the Bull and the next constellation that it is still in front of. I choose 4/23 so far as the best candidate so far, so I decide to "cheat" and see if this is the perhaps the same date that the "experts" picked. https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf On page 26, P&D picked the same date I picked for the Nisannu the 1st. 4/23. (His dates are in BCE. and that first date 4/23 is the first month of the new year.  Just for fun I check the rest of the months, and they get farther and farther off. I also decide to check what day the experts say was the official day starting Addaru (in the previous month). I wasn't sure if it would have been a possible sighting on 3/23 or the definitely visible moon on 3/24. P&D says it was 3/24. Of course P&D has the advantage of knowing where the leap months are based on tablets, and whether any tablets were dated Addaru 30 or if they all ended on Addaru 29. And this tablet itself gives us a mention of Nissanu 1 being the same day as Addaru 30.  After seeing the failures of the next months, I notice that P&D never has Nissanu starting before 3/11 or after 4/27, so we are already in a fairly "late" start of spring. I say this because on March 11th, in a few days, we will be in nearly the exact same situation where a new moon appears, but sets so close to the bright sun that we won't likely be able to see it until 3/11 or 3/12. If that's the first of Nisan, then Nisan 14 (and 1+13=14) should be on the 3/11+13 = 3/24. I think that in Judea they wouldn't have been able to detect it until the 12th, but we have more accurate measurements these days and know it was there even if we can't see it for all the sunlight interference. To see the movie (below) from 3/24 568 BCE, you have to make it full screen. The moon is selected so it has the little red rays coming out of it. Trying to show it as a sliver would make it impossible to locate here, so they show it as animating/oscillating from a dot to a white ball and back.
 

moonset-567.mp4

Not to get into this again with you, but VAT 4956 refers to about 30 very specific events. They are astronomical events which the same tablet itself says are tied to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 
No critics link it to "the Saros cycle of 19 years" because there is no such thing as a Saros cycle of 19 years. If you ever are able to locate such a reference I'd love to see it. 
The WTS doesn't propose an 18-year-cycle. Nor did they ever mention an intention to propose one. Nor do the publications ever mention "saros" or 18 years in any context about lunar or solar or planetary or astronomical events. 
Trying to tie overwhelming evidence from person's who have no interest in the Watchtower (Steele, Sachs, Hunger, Ptolemy, Stephenson, Parker, Dubberstein, etc.) to persons who are critics of the Watchtower is just an old trick sometimes called "poisoning the well." It's just another logical fallacy people still fall for to avoid looking at the evidence for themselves. In this case it is the Watchtower that is the opposer of the tablets, plain and simple. But it has become necessary to grasp at almost anything to sow doubt about the tablets
What was that criticism? Where is it found?
Are you able to explain why scholars praised him for being so thorough?
There you go!! Something we can agree on.

I see a lot of online claims about the Babylonian and Egyptian measurements using fingers, hand, four-fingers, four-fingers+thumb, double-hands, fist, double-fists, forearm, foot, etc., and not all of them are accurate. It looks like the Egyptians had a specific fist-measure, but I don't see anything in the Babylonian documents that define the fist as a measure. I have deferred to Steele, Neugebauer, Sachs/Hunger, Stephenson/Fatoohi, and a few other resources on the standards of measurement in use. If you have access to the full documents below, I found that these ones were useful:
Pathways into the Study of Ancient Sciences
Isabelle Pingree, John M. Steele, Charles Burnett, DAVID EDWIN PINGREE, Erica Reiner
https://www-jstor-org.azp1.lib.harvard.edu/stable/24398230
Angular measurements in Babylonian astronomy
L. J. Fatoohi, F. R. Stephenson
Archiv für Orientforschung, Bd. 44/45 (1997/1998), pp. 210-214 The History of Ancient Astronomy Problems and Methods
O. Neugebauer
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Jan., 1945), pp. 1-38
https://www-jstor-org.azp1.lib.harvard.edu/stable/542323
Babylonian Mathematics
Raymond Clare Archibald Isis, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Dec., 1936), pp. 63-81   A New Look at the Constellation Figures in the Celestial Diagram Author(s): Donald V. Etz Source: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, 1997, Vol. 34 (1997), pp. 143-161 Published by: American Research Center in Egypt Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40000803   Babylonian Horoscopes Author(s): Francesca Rochberg Source: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 1998, New Series, Vol. 88, No. 1 (1998), pp. i-xi+1-164 Published by: American Philosophical Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1006632   I thought that the Fatoohi/Stephenson method was the best to determine that a finger remained a consistent 0.092 degrees from 600 BCE to about 50 BCE. And that a cubit measure (as an angle) was consistently 2.2 degrees.  Those can give some good working numbers for comparing the measurements on several tablets to Stellarium readings.   I was surprised to learn that there are ancient measurement standards "set in stone" for lengths of a cubit, number of fingers in a cubit (24), 'how to draw a human body' templates with proportions (measured in fists, even). Although there were different cubits and measures in different countries, there were also some commonalities between "feet" measures between Egypt and Mesopotamia that could only have meant that one influenced the other for a trade standard. Most of the above papers discuss celestial measurements, and I include them because there is even some  speculation that the Babylonians and Egyptians were sometimes measuring with various instruments, not just with hands. By the 500's BCE their influence on Pythagoras was already obvious and accurate enough for some mathematical formulas based on their ancient observations. And I had never actually looked at Ptolemy's writings before this year, and was amazed that his access to and reliance on ancient Babylonian astronomy documents allowed him to go into such accurate mathematical detail. (I linked to Ptolemy's Almagest in an earlier post.)