ComfortMyPeople

A pretty cool tool for angular “rule of fist” astronomical observations is available for any IPhone. Mine is about 8 years old.
THEODOLITE - On the App Store. 
 

One more important thing is to click on the Moon (also called SIN in this Sky Culture, because the Moon god was named SIN). You will be able to see one of the lines of information showing the phase of the moon which will be very important. At this time on January 1st, the phase is: "Moon Age: 8.1 days old (Waxing Gibbous)"
That means that at 7pm, when I took this screenshot, it was now 8.1 days since the new moon sliver began, and the sliver was "waxing" or growing bigger (prior to the full moon). After the full moon the phase becomes "Waning Gibbous," getting smaller again until the moon disappears and starts a new sliver (new moon) for a new month.
 

We can use the "new moon" -- the transition between waning and waxing -- to not only find the beginning of the new month, but also the beginning of the new year. The new year was the month starting the first day of Nisannu, just like the Hebrew "sacred" new year was started on the first day of Nisan.
The new year started Nisannu the 1st, and the month Nisannu was the month that started closest to the spring equinox. Therefore the first full moon after the spring equinox should always be within a day of Nisan 14. That's because there are 29.5 days in a lunar month, so months typically alternated between 29 and 30 days for an average of 29.5. The middle of a 29-day month could land closer to the 14th, and the middle of a 30-day month could land closer to the 15th. Also, it depended on whether there was a delay in actually seeing the new moon sliver which could easily delay by a day.
Note the Watchtower's comment on Nisan 14 here:
*** w76 2/1 p. 73 “Keep Doing This in Remembrance of Me” ***
According to our present method of calculation, the Memorial date approximates the nearest full moon after the spring equinox. For example, in 1975 the Memorial date, as calculated fourteen days from the new moon (nearest the spring equinox) visible in Jerusalem, was Thursday, March 27, after sundown. Appropriately, there was also a full moon on Thursday, March 27, 1975. The date for Memorial in 1976, calculated by our present method, falls on Wednesday, April 14, after sundown. The full moon also occurs on this same date. So if, in the future, any of Jehovah’s people should be out of touch with the governing body, they could determine the Memorial date with fair accuracy from local calendars that show the first full moon after the spring equinox. The celebration would then take place after sundown of the day on which the full moon occurs.
So a fun experiment is to see if you can use just observation in the software program to find the date of the new year. You can probably find Nisannu just by looking for the exact time the phase changes from waning to waxing (the new sliver) and find the one closest to the Spring Equinox. That always puts the first full moon after the spring equinox in March or April, and very rarely, early in May.
If you scroll through the dates, you find the first new moon is on January 23, -567. The next one is on February 22nd. Still too early. The next one is on March 23rd. A good candidate. And the next one is on April 23rd. Also a good candidate. And we have to know something about Babylonian observations to figure out which one of those last two is the best candidate. But we can take a good guess and see if it matches the scholars later. 
After guessing, we can check it against page 26 of Parker and Dubberstein: https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf
P & D had the advantage of checking hundreds of dated clay tablets to be able to know which years had the leap month, and that produced a much more sure version of the Babylonian calendar. 
What Stellarium will let you do is see how much the sun's glare might have interfered with the ability to see a new moon sliver. If it couldn't be seen, the month started the next day. Also, they new it was due if the previous month had 30 days. But some months would have only 29 which would pretty much mean the next month should have 30.

@xero, i don't know how far along you are but Stellarium is a great tool for this, and I see you are using the Mul.Apin Sky Culture. It saves time from having to keep track of the Babylonian star names yourself.
I suspect there will be some others here who might try the Stellarium software, too. If so, they should know that it's good to get more than use the online web version. It's great, but the desktop version gives you everything you need.
It's free. Although you are allowed to donate. 
You can download and install the latest version 23.3 or 23.4 from here: https://stellarium.org/release/2023/09/25/stellarium-23.3.html
Once installed, you will want to change the location to somewhere near Babylon. The city @xero picked is below:

Once you install it, you can hover your mouse over the bottom left edge of the screen and select the icon just under the clock:
"Sky and Viewing Options [F4]"
Then select "Sky Culture" from the top of that newly opened window, and pick Babylonian -- MUL.APIN:

Now when you close that window, pick the clock icon you saw earlier. 
Start with any BCE date you like, but I think most people will try either 588 BCE or 568 BCE if the first thing they want to check is VAT 4956:
Along the bottom of the screen, if you hover the mouse over the bottom left edge of the screen you will see some other options:

The first two highlighted ones will toggle the borders of the constellations on, which is helpful. The second one toggles the names on and off. But you will also probably want to experiment with the imagery and the horizon/landscape settings which you can make disappear or make  almost transparent. You can also use the arrow keys and Page Up and Page Down to zoom in and out and turn the orientation so that you are facing due West which is my favorite place to start. 
The last thing to do after orienting your screen is to go back to that Clock icon and set the year, month, day, and time. If you want to check 568 BCE first, then type the following into the date and time boxes. For purposes of VAT 4956 I would start on January 1, 568 BCE. In astronomy dates 568 BCE is written as -567, due to the zero year issue. So that's actually written as -567:01:01 -- 00:00:01. You don't have to spin it all the way back; you can type numbers into the fields. Here I will set it for 4:45 in the afternoon.

16:45 (4:45pm) is pretty close to sundown on January 1, but you can "spin" the dial forward to just after sundown so that you can actually see the visible stars:

If you make it even later after sundown, the glow of the sun is gone, and you can see more constellations fall below the horizon. Just for fun I have also toggled the ecliptic lines which might come in handy for later:

That's pretty much the set-up although there's a ton of other things to play with.
 

It might be good to read at least the first page of this work: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41670130
You won't need a log-in to JSTOR for it, because it's all on the preview page.
Basically, the point is that a "cubit" is indeed a unit of angular measure, but the paper uses a more stringent method of measuring it accurately by looking at the 200 or so planetary references in Babylonian documents, since planets move slower than the moon and some planets were only visible for a short period of time, and therefore we can know the time window of the observation more accurately.  
Basically, as you can see in the summary of the document, the cubit had been considered to be about 2 degrees, and a finger would be 1/24th of a cubit. The paper will more accurately offer evidence of 2.2 degrees per cubit, a difference of only 10%. 

Also, on the question of what is in front of or behind, the following will likely make the most sense to you after you have looked at enough observations and compared them with your Stellarium screen (or any other software that does this).a
Even though it's easier to envision the horizon rather than the ecliptic, it still generally works out that words Babylonians used in their "astronomy" mapped as follows:
North=Above, South=Below, East=Behind, West=In Front.  For the parts of the sky closest to the horizon, especially towards the west,  it therefore works out like the old "Western" movie cliche, where "the sun sinks slowly into the west." So it's easy to imagine that most of the heavenly objects are sinking in that direction therefore the sun was in front of all the stars that will also "sink" in that general direction. Therefore all the stars along MOST of the sky that are still farther east are behind, heading racing toward the horizon. And they will also be in the same "in front" or "behind" positions when  they appear to come up on the eastern horizon the next morning. 

As everyone can now see, I didn't make anything up. I simply quoted correctly from what you had just posted a minute or so earlier.
I never expected you to admit a mistake. This is a tiny one, but the bigger the mistake the more you dig in your heels and try to project it onto the other person. You should be aware, however, that almost by definition, that a person who is known for projecting their faults and insecurities onto others, ends up revealing a lot more about themselves.
No. It had everything to do with my remark. Jesus spoke of the resurrection at the last day, but persons in the first century were believing the times and seasons were in their own jurisdiction and claiming that the resurrection had already occurred, just as you posted. The exact same thing happens with the 1914 doctrine, because we tie that to the claim that the first resurrection has already occurred:
*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935. Can we be more precise?
 
I'm hearing an echolalia. You are repeating what I was saying above, except that you are projecting it back as if you have never been able to admit a mistake and must try to make your mistake stick to the person who pointed it out. 
Please keep in mind how others perceive a person who is bent on projecting their errors onto others. It's almost like confession. Note again that it was the Watchtower that linked the first resurrection to the 1914 chronology. (See above.)
I think everyone is aware that subtext of every discussion of Neo-Babylonian chronology is always the 1914 doctrine. 

For the record, I do not claim that the resurrection has already taken place. That's part of the 1914 doctrine.

If you're still around @xero, and you reach this post, I think by now you will have seen how "607 vs 587" is played as if it's a game for 607 supporters. Supporters of 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th (or 19th) year must play it as a game of extreme obfuscation. 
I doubt that anyone will attempt to answer any of the questions and challenges that make the outcome appear too simple. Those must be dodged at all costs because they don't lend themselves to obfuscation. 
With that in mind, I'm ready to summarize. But I also wanted to clarify my own position on this whole chronology question. 
My real concern is not the way @George88 or @scholar JW or Rolf Furuli or others defend the 607 doctrine.
I don't even have a big problem with the 607 doctrine itself. I have no trouble explaining that, as Witnesses, we believe the 70 years must have ended shortly after 539/8, therefore the 70 year period must have started around 607, and that even if Jerusalem didn't fall precisely in that year, this was still the time period when Babylon brought about an interruption of the Davidic Messianic Kingdom in Jerusalem, but that Jehovah's purpose was to bring back righteous government with a his own Davidic Messianic King's government that would never be brought to ruin. (Daniel 2:44, Ezekiel 21:27) The lesson, even from Daniel 4, still points to Jehovah's sovereignty and purpose and therefore highlights the most common OT reference in the NT: that Jesus was resurrected to rule at God's right hand, until all enemies are brought under his feet, including the last enemy death through the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21 & 22). 
So it's not difficult to teach the same lesson from all the major verses we currently use, even talking about the generation since the first world war now living at a time when we are all sighing and groaning over the system of things, crying out in these last days for the hope of a new one. 
It's not important to me to claim that 587/586 is the most probable match for the specific year the Temple was destroyed, or the exact date when the last king at Jerusalem was removed, or that there is really no evidence whatsoever for 607. We have every right to believe something, whether there is evidence of it or not. 
But I do have a problem when Witnesses go online and make us look stupid by publicly claiming that the best evidence is for 607 BCE, and it's therefore somehow more Biblical, and 587 is somehow "apostate." Claiming there is evidence for our take on 607 is not only untrue, it makes us look like we are trying to prove we are more intellectual and scholarly than the scholars and experts. Or to presumptuously claim that the times and seasons are not just in Jehovah's jurisdiction but also in ours. 
It's not a matter of having faith like little children, and that Jehovah has hidden something from the wise and intellectual and given it to children. It's the opposite! It's us bragging to the world that we are even more scholarly than the scholars, that we understand intellectual things better. That we are able to judge the evidence and tell you which secular evidence is useful and which secular evidence is not. 
This is highly presumptuous and haughty, and when the WTS tries to explain itself, we find ourselves backed into a corner where we must try to support some flimsy "pretend" evidence, or pseudo-chronology. We end up being academically dishonest and we end up using logical fallacies and obfuscation. But I don't mean blatantly lying. It's a matter of having previously been told and then accepting that this particular belief about 607 is an important part of our faith. To many of us that would mean that we are going against the faith by even looking at other evidence. So it skews our thinking, and we put blinders on. 
I think this goes for Watchtower writers, too. They grasp at straws to look for anything that might throw doubt about the existing reasonable evidence. And it makes us appear unreasonable. Every article in the Watchtower on chronology has done this. I quoted the 1969 article where we claimed that a non-matching eclipse was a better match than a matching eclipse.
Also in the 1969 Watchtower was a reference to the Adad-Guppi inscription, and a bit of academic dishonesty or at least scholastic sloppiness shows up there, too.
The article makes a big deal about how much chronological information was damaged and unreadable from the inscription and that we therefore can't use it to support the Neo-Babylonian chronology. However, at the time this was written there were TWO well-known and well-publicized copies of the same inscription, and the one discovered in 1956 had already been published for more than a decade with the years of reigns of kings from the last Assyrian king to Nabopolassar to Nebuchadnezzar to Evil-Merodach to Neriglissar up to the last king Nabonidus himself. All the numbers were readable and in good condition on that one. But that one is not mentioned here, or in any follow-up apology for having ignored it.
*** w69 2/1 p. 89 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable? ***
What is thought to be a memorial tablet written either for the mother or the grandmother of Nabonidus, gives some chronological data for this period, but many portions of the text have been damaged, leaving much to the ingenuity and conjecture of historians. The reader can appreciate how fragmentary the text is by ignoring the bracketed material in the following translation of one section of this memorial—material that represents modern attempts at restoring the missing, damaged or illegible portions:.
“[During the time from Ashurbanipal], the king of Assyria, [in] whose [rule] I was born—(to wit): [21 years] under Ashurbanipal, [4 years under Ashur]etillu-ilani, his son, [21 years under Nabopola]ssar, 43 years under Nebuchadnezzar, [2 years under Ewil-Merodach], 4 years under Neriglissar, [in summa 95 yea]rs, [the god was away] till Sin, the king of the gods, [remembered the temple] . . . of his [great] godhead, his clouded face [shone up], [and he listened] to my prayers, [forgot] the angry command [which he had given, and decided to return t]o the temple é-hul-hul, the temple, [the mansion,] his heart’s delight. [With regard to his impending return to] the [temp]le, Sin, the king of [the gods, said (to me)]: ‘Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the son [of my womb] [shall] make [me] en[ter/sit down (again)] in (to) the temple é-hul-hul!’ I care[fully] obeyed the orders which [Sin], the king of the gods, had pronounced (and therefore) I did see myself (how) Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the offspring of my womb, reinstalled completely the forgotten rites of Sin, . . . ”
Farther along in the text Nabonidus’ mother (or grandmother) is represented as crediting Sin with granting her long life “from the time of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, to the 6th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son of my womb, (that is) for 104 happy years, . . . ”—Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pages 311, 312.
From this very incomplete inscription it can be seen that the only figures actually given are the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and 4 years of Neriglissar’s reign. As to this latter monarch, the text does not necessarily limit his reign to four years; rather it tells of something that happened in his fourth year.
 
This information was rolled out to sow doubt, no doubt. But why bring this one up at all if it hides the real story? 

This is a very odd question. It's such a well-known fact that the Babylonian Chronicles do not mention the year 597 BCE. How could they, unless they were prophetic that a new "Christian" era would begin 590-some years later?  They do mention what went on in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, the first year, the second year, etc,. . . on up to the 11th year when they are broken off and missing from that point through the rest of his reign. This is exactly what I quoted to you from Dr Wiseman. Dr. Wiseman agrees that there are many methods to determine the BCE equivalent of those years, but naturally he would agree with me and everyone else, that the Chronicles themselves on their own do not contain BC/BCE year markings.
I can't believe that you might have thought those dates were actually on the Babylonian Chronicles. Those dates are determined from dozens of archaeological references to astronomical events during the Neo-Babylonian empire. They even coincide with Egyptian records, Assyrian records, Persian records, and Greek records.
  They refer to just almost exactly the same thing. In practice they mean the same. I prefer BCE over BC for the same reasons that the Watchtower does.
It's pretty obvious that you aren't understanding the evidence provided by all the authorities and experts that the Watchtower magazine quotes from. I have already explained how the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar can be associated with his 18th year through simple math. 
The 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar is associated with 568 BCE. There is a tablet for his 37th year with many astronomy observations that can ONLY refer to celestial events in 568 BCE. 
If you can't see that this also associates the prior year, his 36th year with 569 BCE, and his 35th year with 570 BCE, and his 25th year with 580, and his 15th year with 590, and his 18th year with 587 BCE, then I'm pretty sure there is no further use discussing this with you. 
Perhaps one more question for you to try to answer would clear it up.
If you can answer it, then great. We can go on. If you can't or won't answer it, then I see no reason for continuing to discuss the topic with you:
If Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year is 568 BCE, then what BCE year would be his 18th year?

So far, the Watchtower has not been able to present even one scholarly insight contradicting the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE. And yes, I am suggesting that the experts the Watchtower has quoted from as authorities are ALL correct. If it's "my deception" then it is also the deception of ALL the experts the Watchtower has depended on for scholarly insights. 
 Your projection about "mind games" is unnecessary. I have never denied that I agree with the experts and authorities the Watchtower has quoted from and referenced for scholarly insights. 
As you can see above I said you cannot determine Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year using the 18-year cycle from 568 BCE, whatever that means. There is no 18-year cycle involved here. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE is not based on any 18-year cycles, nor is there any 18-year cycle that would take you from his 37th year to his 18th year. 
You are evidently confusing any mention of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year with something you are calling an "18-year cycle." When I turned 18 year's old it wasn't based on an 18-year cycle. When I turned 19, it wasn't based on a 19-year cycle. It was simply my 18th year, then my 19th year. No cycles involved. From what I can tell, you like the word "cycles" only because you seem to think it can help you manipulate the simple match I gave you to find a year that's 18 or 19 (or 20) years off from what the simple math actually tells you -- by throwing in an undefined "cycle."

All right. Since you won't try to answer the question yourself, I'll start here with your latest questions and work backwards to the point where I already answered them the first time.   
Don't know and don't care. You are the one who clearly cares more about COJ. I suppose you could look it up.
I am certainly not, as you say: "Evading the question about the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar." The Bible indicates that his reign lasted very close to 43 years; so I believe he had a 43rd year, therefore I believe he had a 37th. There are many business tablets dated to that year, along with one of the oldest and most famous astronomical diaries. I have no problem with any of the information on any of them. I am able to confirm that the diary dated that year does indeed refer to astronomy events that can be calculated to 568 BCE and 567 BCE. Although there are always a few readings that can be quite similar to any other year (even this year, 2024 CE) there are a lot of them that can ONLY have happened in that particular year 568 BCE.
I have no way of verifying whether some or any of the historical information is true, meaning whether Nebuchadnezzar himself was actually involved in any campaigns referenced for that same year. At least we know that the Babylonians were more forthright about their defeats and their fears than say, the Assyrian and many Egyptian records, so I am willing to give the information on the astronomical tablet the benefit of the doubt.
As to what seems like a specific question that asks for solid evidence solid evidence that the tablets in question that refer to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar were specifically generated for the "destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC"
This seems a lot like asking me to provide solid evidence that the Lincoln-Douglas debates were specifically generated  to help George Washington win the Revolutionary War in the previous century before Lincoln. Why would I want to find evidence to support something I have never claimed, and a premise that I find completely ridiculous? I will never want to or try to provide evidence that whatever Nebuchadnezzar was reported to have done in his 37th year was specifically generated for the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE.  
Perhaps you only meant to ask if a tablet that indicates that his 37th year was 568 BCE somehow also provides evidence that the destruction of Jerusalem was in 587. Of course it doesn't. All it does is provide evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE. If someone's is proven to be 37 years old this year, then that is absolute PROOF that they were 27 years old 10 years earlier, and that they were 18 years old 19 years earlier. So any true evidence that Nebuchadnezzar was in his 37th year in 568 BCE (if true) is also evidence that 27th year was 10 years earlier, and his 18th year was 19 years earlier, therefore, 587 BCE. 
If you don't agree with the points I just highlighted in red, above, we probably could just stop the conversation right here and stop wasting each other's time, with your evasions and my need to repeat the same answers over and over. So I'll go on to the next, but I am also asking you if you agree with the points I just highlighted in red in that last paragraph. Are you willing to at least respond to that question about whether you agree to only what's in red?
That will give us a place to start, and then we can move on to whether you believe that there is really any TRUE evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 568 BCE.

@George88Also, you can throw out your reliance on COJ as a boogeyman, and just use the "expert" ,, researchers, and authorities that the Watchtower Society quotes instead:
*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, . . . D. D. Luckenbill: . . .—Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia . . .  A. T. Olmstead, . . .—Assyrian Historiography, . . . Professor A. W. Ahl (Outline of Persian History). . . . Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975 . . . . .A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. . . .  (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, . . . Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) . . .The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. . . .  . . . D. J. Wiseman
Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, London, 1956, p. 1) . . . Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971 . . . Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler . . . Professor O. Neugebauer . . . —The Exact Sciences in Antiquity,. . . . George Rawlinson . . . . P. J. Wiseman, [same as D. J. Wiseman, above.]
Or we can use persons on the following lists of experts, researchers and authors found in the 2011 Watchtower about VAT 4956:
*** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
[all text snippets below taken directly from the article's footnotes, with only a few repetitions]
Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, published 1975, 2000 reprint, page 8. Neo-Babylonian Business and Administrative Documents, by Ellen Whitley Moore, published 1935, page 33. Archimedes, Volume 4, New Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, “Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by Early Astronomers,” by John M. Steele, published 2000, page 36. Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates, by Ronald H. Sack, published 1972, page 3. . . . Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates, pages 3, 90, 106. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VIII, (Tablets From Sippar 3) by Erle Leichty, J. J. Finkelstein, and C.B.F. Walker, published 1988, pages 25, 35. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VII, (Tablets From Sippar 2) by Erle Leichty and A. K. Grayson, published 1987, page 36. Neriglissar—King of Babylon, by Ronald H. Sack, published 1994, page 232. The month on the tablet is Ajaru (second month). —Nabonidus and Belshazzar—A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, by Raymond P. Dougherty, published 1929, page 61. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, edited by Hermann Hunger, published 2001, pages 2-3. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Volume 2, No. 4, 1948, “A Classification of the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets of the Seleucid Period,” by A. Sachs, pages 282-283. Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, pages 164, 201-202. Bibliotheca Orientalis, L N° 1/2, Januari-Maart, 1993, “The Astronomical Diaries as a Source for Achaemenid and Seleucid History,” by R. J. van der Spek, pages 94, 102. 16. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume I, by Abraham J. Sachs, completed and edited by Hermann Hunger, published 1988, page 47. 17. Babylonian Eclipse Observations From 750 BC to 1 BC, by Peter J. Huber and Salvo De Meis, published 2004,  . . . (An Astronomical Observer’s Text of the 37th Year Nebuchadnezzar II), by Paul V. Neugebauer and Ernst F. Weidner, pages 67-76, . . . (Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy—Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, (“The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis,” by F. R. Stephenson and David M. Willis, in Under One Sky—Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, edited by John M. Steele and Annette Imhausen,  This analysis was made with the astronomy software entitled TheSky6™. In addition, the analysis was augmented by the comprehensive freeware program Cartes du Ciel/Sky Charts (CDC) and a date converter provided by the U.S. Naval Observatory. . . . I just found another:
*** w69 3/15 p. 187 Astronomical Calculations and the Count of Time ***
The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, E. R. Thiele, p. 53.
 
So, let's forget about your precious need for COJ's association with the dates in question, and only make use of the same resources and authorities that the Watchtower thought useful to list. 

@George88, You also still attempt the same thing scholarJW attempted several times with me in the past by trying to claim that this is apostate data, that it is COJ methodology. This time around, even scholarJW admitted that COJ only repeated the standard evidence given by others. So I doubt that this particular "ruse" is working so well any more. Here are just some of your examples:
It's a clever ruse, only for those who don't realize that Carl Olof Johnson had nothing to do with this data. In the next post I'll supply some names of persons that the WTS thinks are better to quote from. None of them have ever shown support for the WTS Chronology, however.

@George88: I know that your accusations that I am the one deflecting are untrue, and I'm pretty sure that the 3+ people on this forum who might still be following the conversation also figured that out many, many pages ago. But I will go ahead and answer your questions one more time, even though I already responded directly to all of them. Perhaps, by comparison, it will serve to further highlight your attempts to divert and evade and dodge. 
I will mention up front however, that I already knew that you and scholarJW would do nothing but evade such a simple question, but the more important point is that this type of evasion is true of ALL Witnesses who know the answer. It's even seen in the very careful wording of the Insight book's Chronology article. Once you do more research on your own, you begin to realize that the WTS publications, especially since 1981, had to start choosing their words much more carefully so as to avoid admitting what they now knew to be true, and what they didn't want readers to know. I'm embarrassed by the technique, because it's also a type of evasion. The 1969 Watchtower eclipse mistake and the 2011 Watchtower that fell for Fururi's fumbling fiasco were also embarrassing, but the culprit was probably just a lot of "wishful thinking." Agenda driven research is typically myopic.
So I will answer your questions one more time in one of my next posts, but before I do, I will remind our expansive audience that the simple question to you was:
What BCE year does Babylonian astronomy evidence point to for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign? 
Here are your responses:
You simply evade, evade, evade, and then try to claim that I am the one evading. 
Also, you can throw out your reliance on COJ as a boogeyman, and just use the "expert" authors and researchers that the Watchtower Society quotes instead:
*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, . . . D. D. Luckenbill: . . .—Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia
. . .  A. T. Olmstead, . . .—Assyrian Historiography, . . . Professor A. W. Ahl (Outline of Persian History). . . . Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975 . . . . .A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. . . .  (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, . . . Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) . . .The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. . . .  . . . (Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, London, 1956, p. 1) . . . Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971 . . . Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler . . . Professor O. Neugebauer . . . —The Exact Sciences in Antiquity,. . . . George Rawlinson . . . . P. J. Wiseman, 
Or we can use persons on the following lists of experts, researchers and authors found in the 2011 Watchtower about VAT 4956:
*** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
[all text snippets below taken directly from the article's footnotes, with only a few repetitions]
Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, published 1975, 2000 reprint, page 8. Neo-Babylonian Business and Administrative Documents, by Ellen Whitley Moore, published 1935, page 33. Archimedes, Volume 4, New Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, “Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by Early Astronomers,” by John M. Steele, published 2000, page 36. Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates, by Ronald H. Sack, published 1972, page 3. . . . Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates, pages 3, 90, 106. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VIII, (Tablets From Sippar 3) by Erle Leichty, J. J. Finkelstein, and C.B.F. Walker, published 1988, pages 25, 35. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VII, (Tablets From Sippar 2) by Erle Leichty and A. K. Grayson, published 1987, page 36. Neriglissar—King of Babylon, by Ronald H. Sack, published 1994, page 232. The month on the tablet is Ajaru (second month). —Nabonidus and Belshazzar—A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, by Raymond P. Dougherty, published 1929, page 61. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, edited by Hermann Hunger, published 2001, pages 2-3. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Volume 2, No. 4, 1948, “A Classification of the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets of the Seleucid Period,” by A. Sachs, pages 282-283. Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, pages 164, 201-202. Bibliotheca Orientalis, L N° 1/2, Januari-Maart, 1993, “The Astronomical Diaries as a Source for Achaemenid and Seleucid History,” by R. J. van der Spek, pages 94, 102. 16. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume I, by Abraham J. Sachs, completed and edited by Hermann Hunger, published 1988, page 47. 17. Babylonian Eclipse Observations From 750 BC to 1 BC, by Peter J. Huber and Salvo De Meis, published 2004,  . . . (An Astronomical Observer’s Text of the 37th Year Nebuchadnezzar II), by Paul V. Neugebauer and Ernst F. Weidner, pages 67-76, . . . (Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy—Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, (“The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis,” by F. R. Stephenson and David M. Willis, in Under One Sky—Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, edited by John M. Steele and Annette Imhausen,  This analysis was made with the astronomy software entitled TheSky6™. In addition, the analysis was augmented by the comprehensive freeware program Cartes du Ciel/Sky Charts (CDC) and a date converter provided by the U.S. Naval Observatory. . . . So, let's forget about your precious need for COJ's association with the dates in question, and only make use of the same resources that the Watchtower thought useful to list. 

I'll try one more time, just so it may be even more obvious to anyone who cares: that even for a Witness who claims the following (below) they will still dodge the question:
Imagine, having made a thorough analysis of all available data, and still being unable to bring yourself to answer a simple question. Instead, you rely on tired old tactics of poisoning the well by calling the evidence "apostate." Or pretending the evidence somehow comes from COJ. Or making the empty claim, without evidence, that the data is being distorted. 
Figured as much.
You don't give any evidence about "their true purpose." You appear to disagree with the Insight book where it says that inscriptions about two eclipses are "helpful" in determining chronology (at least when it's a specific BCE date we can agree with). 
So one more time, for you or anyone else who is interested. Find any fellow Witness who has studied the issue and ask the question:
What BCE year does Babylonian astronomy evidence point to for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign? 

Not me. I think it can be useful for some people and sometimes can even be funny. It's often entertaining, and it can have serious uses, too. It can be revealing in interesting ways related to psychology and human interaction. I think the world and Witnesses too need to be ready for an onslaught of fake people, fake news, fake information, and no one will have the time to figure out who's really who online, or even on the news. People can scrub their own accounts and try to start fresh (like a certain NYT's "journalist" who was just outed as a propagandist for Israeli intelligence). I don't like Nikki Haley's "true ID" proposal because people use identities as protection from harassment, political persecution, religious persecution, or even from being shunned by loved ones in their local congregation over the things they are learning. 
Sock puppets don't bother me. I personally don't want to use one. But there are times when their use can be informative. I've seen you use one in a good way, even very recently, to raise a question, and make an informative comment, and sometimes that keeps a conversation going for a good purpose. It's only when people under any of their names are being obnoxious, divisive, causing dissension, being nasty, etc., that I have a problem. Also, there are some people here who don't respond well to a string of downvotes at everything they say. And there are some who use their sock puppets for no other reason than to build up their reputation with upvotes, which doesn't hurt anyone. But I don't like to see a person get discouraged or offended at constant downvotes so I will sometimes "out" a person for doing that because then they will know it's ONLY this or that person, and it's not a "real" response.
Here's an example that could feel offensive to @Arauna:

Notice that I said nothing controversial, and added that I hoped Arauna would say something to us about how she is doing these days since we hadn't heard from her in a while. But you downvoted it. Is she going to think that some new person doesn't like her and doesn't want to know how she is doing? In the past another one of your identities told her multiple times that she was foolish for disagreeing with you. She got used to that from you. So if she knows it's just you again, she won't be overly concerned. 

That's quite an admission. And I'm sure you know that you could be disfellowshipped if you made this same  "unequivocal" statement and stuck to it publicly in your congregation after "counsel" or "reproof."  So I seriously hope you are careful about it, especially as you earlier mentioned that you hope to have your theory published someday. 
 Actually, you have found evidence that Jerusalem met it's fall in 597 not it's end, not its destruction that the Bible says came about 10 years later. You haven't proven the Bible wrong yet. Those Babylonian Chronicles mention that Nebuchadnezzar went up against Jerusalem in his 8th year. So if you say his 8th year was 597, where does that put his 18th year, 10 years later. Sounds like 597 minus 10 is 587 is what you are saying his 18th year was. Unless you are manipulating something for other purposes. 
*** it-1 p. 775 Exile ***
King Nebuchadnezzar took the royal court and the foremost men of Judah into exile at Babylon. (2Ki 24:11-16) About ten years later, . . . at the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon, Nebuzaradan, the chief of the Babylonian bodyguard, took most of the remaining ones and deserters of the Jews with him to Babylon

 

That's correct, and you also have things going on in China and Europe at the time. Therefore the events have nothing to do with the fact that this and ALL OTHER astronomical diaries and observations from his time point to 568 as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and that is the same thing as pointing to 587 as the 18th year, and 586 as the 19th year. It absolutely does not matter what events were going on at the same time. You are right that they have no value for the year stipulated by the tablets.
Interestinig isn't it? This has come up before in old topics, that Jeremiah may have meant the expression "70 years" in much the same way as it looks like Isaiah used it. "The typical or "fated" lifespan of a kingdom" like that of Babylon. As if it were already a cliche about Assyria, and the "lifespan" of a kingdom rarely went beyond a dynasty of say, father/son/grandson before a new dynasty would begin. It may not have been literal, a literal, exact 70 years, but just used a way of reminding people that empires and dynasties come and go, and Jehovah will use that same lifespan cycle, of the rise and fall of empires, to both punish and then release his people. In that sense Babylon's "70 years" becomes Judah's "70 years" of reversal. Not that either one needs to be exact or even needs to coincide. The "70 years" given to one is the cause of the "70 years" of the other. 
I personally don't buy it, though, because it's so obvious that the fall of the Assyrian Empire was most apparent 70 years before the fall of Babylon was most apparent. From 609 to 539 is a much better theory than 587 to 517 for the "flip side" of the 70 years for the Temple. I think you have implied that the Temple might have actually been effectively destroyed in 597 or at least at the Babylonian Chronicle's event associated with 597. It makes for an interesting "compromise" only 10 years off the WTS date, and 10 years off the evidence from all the astronomy dating for NEB II.
You said that wrong. Accession year is used so that his 37th regnal year IS also 568 and not 567, according to the way Babylonians were required to count. If you had used a different method of counting regnal years (NON-Accession year counting) then the 37th year would be one year EARLIER not later, because his accession year (the zero-th year) would have already counted as his 1st, therefore his Babylonian counted 10th would be counted in NON-Accession as his 9th. And his 37th would be counted as his 36th. The year earlier was 569 BCE, not 567 BCE. But G88, BTK59, etc., never admit error.
He didn't say it was destroyed in 597, though, did he? He said it fell. Just like Babylon fell to Cyrus in 539. It wasn't destroyed then. For most cities, it wasn't worth destroying if they could still be forced to pay tribute, keep the fields planted, keep the vineyards dressed, etc. There is more wealth to transfer to a king when you DON'T destroy the city but take away their elites who keep most of the trading profits from the "people of the land," and replace those elites with soldiers who are required to take most of those same profits back to their king. 
Also, note that the Bible said it took him about a year and a half of siege to take Jerusalem and finally break through its walls. If you notice the wording carefully in Jeremiah, it appears that most of the ones exiled in 597 were apparently NOT from Jerusalem itself. That happened in year 18/19.
(Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile:
in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.
 In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.
 In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.
In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.
As you also indicated elsewhere above: the opposite is true. You need to work with the dates by their face value, and not try to disprove them just because you assume certain events must have happened elsewhere at a different time. I can say I was 60 in in 2017 and that I saw a total solar eclipse in NYC, but you can't say I wasn't just because you claim that I should have been 60 during the Viet Nam war, or that there was another total solar eclipse in 1925, so THAT must have been my 60th year. The desired event has nothing to do with the date. My birth certificate doesn't change for any events, my driver's license doesn't change for any events, my passport doesn't change for any events. 

That would mean that they counted Nabopolassar's years differently from all the other Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian and Persian kings in Ptolemy's writings and in the original Babylonian inscriptions. Anything's possible. But you appear to be more concerned with whether this Nabopolassar was co-reigning with a different Nebuchadnezzar than the one who claimed he was Nabopolassar's son.
I'm only talking about the mistake the writer made in 1969 in presenting the idea that a non-matching eclipse was a better match than a matching eclipse. 

It's pretty simple.
Ptolemy said that the Babylonians reported an eclipse that was only PARTIAL in the 5th year of Nabopolassar.  Today, that exactly described PARTIAL eclipse can be calculated to 621 BCE.  That makes perfect consistent sense because it meshes perfectly with 100 other astronomical observations that would also indicate that 621 BCE is the 5th year of Nabopolassar. But the Watchtower claims that 621 BCE is the 4th year of Nebuchadnezzar, so the WTS needs this eclipse to have happened in 641 BCE, otherwise 1914 doesn't work. So a Watchtower contributor or writer looks at the eclipse log for 641 BCE, and lo and behold there was a total eclipse that year.  So the Watchtower writer/editor says: Look Ptolemy and Babylon say that a partial eclipse happened in 621, but we found an eclipse that doesn't match that description in 641. Even though it doesn't match, we'll go with it, and say it's even BETTER than the right one that matches, because the 641 eclipse is TOTAL not partial. It's the same as if this happened, not that it ever would:
BTK59 says, I found a report with a map of a burial mound of Cherokee Native Americans in Dahlonega, Georgia, USA containing tiny "Indian arrowheads" of the exact shape that the Cherokees made. I wondered if the map was accurate and if I could find one of those tiny arrowheads. And look, it worked, I just found this Cherokee-style arrowhead exactly where the map pointed.  JWI says, Wait, No. I just found a large flint spearhead in burial mound of Osage Native Americans in Joplin Missouri. This must be what you were really looking for, because it was found in a burial mound just like you said. Now BTK59 has two options here. He could say: BTK59 says: JWI, you are a despicable fool. The map said the tiny arrowheads were in Georgia, and that's where I found an arrowhead exactly matching the description. And now you bring me a large spearhead from hundreds of miles off the map. And you say it's the same just because they were both in burial mounds. Or, BTK59 could say: "I see no conflict with this observation, JWI." 

@xero,
It might have been an innocent set of mistakes after mistakes after mistakes by Furuli, who may have been a bit myopic and started out with extreme confirmation bias, believing that the 588 date MUST be right at all costs for the 37th year. After all, this was the same method the Watchtower (above) had suggested in 1969, so it MUST be true. But it still comes across as a "pious fraud." 
But even more serious, I think, than the potential "pious fraud" unquestionably accepted from Furuli, is the method the Watchtower itself used to hide a very important fact. The hidden fact is directly related to the admission that the tablet contains more PLANETARY observations than LUNAR observations. Why are they just barely mentioned and overlooked?
*** 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. These describe the position of the moon or planets in relation to certain stars or constellations. There are also eight time intervals between the risings and settings of the sun and the moon.
Because of the superior reliability of the lunar positions, researchers have carefully analyzed these 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956.
Really? This last sentence was completely misworded. It should have said the very opposite:
Because lunar positions are more flexible, and more likely to repeat, even coincidentally and sometimes PREDICTABLY from one year to the next and planetary positions often never repeat again for hundreds of years, this would mean that close matches for the planetary observations would therefore be much more important for determining the BCE dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.
Instead we see some sleight of hand here about supposedly superior reliability. When it should have said "inferior reliability" or "superior flexibility." 
But here's the kicker. Rolf Furuli ADMITS in his book that the planetary positions can ONLY be a match to 568 BCE. (Not his goal of promoting 588.) In other words, it was always a worthless exercise to try to overcome the lunar data when he already had to admit that the greater number of readings were for the far superior and more reliable planetary data that he could not even attempt to dismiss in any reasonable way.

@xero, here is the comparison done by Ann O'maly. I got almost exactly the same results running the tests on "Stellarium" and "The Sky." Keep in mind, that the moon pretty much travels across the same path from night to night, so there will ALWAYS be other years when very similar lunar/stellar configurations are seen by coincidence alone. In fact, every 18 years 11 days 8 hours the moon will repeat an eclipse, very often with an additional eclipse usually visible 5 or 6 months from that 18 year cycle.
You are always going to get SOME very similar readings in ANY two years that are compared.
The paper is much longer but it is well summarized with the chart I copied there and here:
Posted December 11, 2020 The older the diary, the more it has been recopied, and the more likely a few errors would creep into it. This will be true of VAT 4956 for which the planetary positions interspersed throughout certain lines of the diary provide excellent evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 568/7 BCE. But the lunar positions on other interspersed lines of the same diary match only 17 dates of the 23 lunar positions, and 17 out of those 23 positions are a match (73.9%).
These are discussed very well here, where the author ("Ann O'maly") has compared the accuracy score, to another proposed date, 20 years further back for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year:
https://www.academia.edu/44227088/Fact_checking_VAT4956_com
The final tabulation is almost identical to the results anyone can get with computer-based astronomy programs. The final column on the right is the score given to the lunar positions for 568/7 which matches the timeline above. (Green is good, red is not.) The left column is a good indication of how well (actually, how poorly!) the lunar positions might match a date 20 years earlier, or even perhaps for any other random year. This attempt to make it match another date scores about 5 out of the 23 positions (21.7% vs 73.9% for the more accurate year).

It's not that Jehovah doesn't "watch" errors, but he is all-knowing and all-understanding and has provided the ransom as a means for forgiveness. So he doesn't watch for errors to slap us down like a human boss might, and he doesn't judge by the number of errors.
But there is one exception for humans. We are to watch for errors in "teaching." And since ours is a teaching ministry, even for the youngest among us, we MUST watch for errors when it comes to teaching wrong doctrine and the possibility of misleading others:
(Matthew 16:12) . . .Then they grasped that he said to watch out, not for the leaven of bread, but for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (1 Timothy 4:16) Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching.. . . (James 3:1) . . .Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment.  (Galatians 6:1) . . .Brothers, even if a man takes a false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness. . . . (Ephesians 4:14, 15) . . .So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. But speaking the truth. . . (Matthew 23:15) . . .Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you travel over sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him a subject for Ge·henʹna twice as much so as yourselves. (Hebrews 13:17) . . .Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you. (Matthew 18:6) But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for him to have hung around his neck a millstone that is turned by a donkey and to be sunk in the open sea.
 

Spoiler alert, @xero: Most of the readings are a much better fit for 568, and only a few can be said to be OK for 588. Except for the single well-documented, copyist's error, that was recognized 100 years ago, most of the other supposed "matches" for 588 require that we also believe the Babylonians had made a mistake in starting their new year more than a month later than it should have been started. Not only is there no evidence that this EVER happened, the Babylonians were much more careful and meticulous about which lunar month started the New Year than the Hebrew calendar. The Hebrews never added the leap month except just after the 12th month. The Babylonians to make sure the New Year always started even closer to the Spring Equinox, would often add the leap month just after the 12th month but sometimes calibrated to add it just after the 6th month when necessary. (This is done because the lunar months only provide about 354 days in the year, so that loss of 11 days from the solar year requires a leap month every 3 years or so.) But we already have excellent evidence for the exact method the Babylonians were already using for their leap months, because the thousands of business tablets identified whether there had just been a month 6 or month 12 leap month. (aka intercalary month)
That means that even most of the "coincidental" readings are bogus, even though Ann O'maly generously allowed the 588 readings themselves to be compared against 568, anyway, in spite of the fact that they weren't real readings because the month was impossible. 

Yes. It's one of the first sets of items I ever checked against the astronomy applications. It's a summary of Rolf Furuli's book. And this is an even bigger embarrassment to the WTS than the Nabopolassar 5th year eclipse that I mentioned in my previous post. 
The article was smart not to use Furuli's name, because his previous book on chronology had also been full of some amateur errors. (And in order to hide the fact that he was merely trying to create "scholarly-looking" support for the WT chronology he said he was developing the "Oslo Chronology." That's where he's from.) And using his name would have led people to the Internet, where his book and his theory had already been thoroughly debunked. And, in the worst-case scenario, it would have potentially driven more Witnesses to do what you are doing, obtaining software to look it up for themselves.
But unfortunately, while removing Furuli's name, the article tends to imply a kind of "editorial 'we'" which implicates the WTS itself, and the article therefore implies that the WTS knows others who have validated Furuli, or has itself tried to verify these readings. Obviously, they didn't or they would discover exactly what you will discover when you check it out for yourself.
The problem starts with the fact that there is a well known copyist's error on the tablet. (Most all the astronomy tablets we have are copies, or even copies of copies.) There is actually more than one error, but none of the others are significant. This copyists error is considered to be off by one day, although some experts say that it may actually be that it was the name of the star that is off, and it is still the correct day. (When I use the term "experts" I mean many of the same people that the WTS quotes as experts in "Insight" etc.)
I wrote up my own findings, but they are not as well-documented and well-presented as has been done by others. The person who presented it best in my opinion has been on this forum. Her name is Ann O'maly, although I expect that's a "screen name" meant to be a pun on the word "anomaly." Her write-up on it is on academia.com, and we also discussed it here on the forum. I'll point you to both in the next couple of posts, and we can discuss it again from there.