JW Insider

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.

@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.
 

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.

Because of the need for the WTS publications to sow seeds of doubt about Ptolemy, the Watchtower made the following statement about that same 621 BCE eclipse. The mistake they made is pretty obvious once you have seen Ptolemy's writing.
*** w69 3/15 pp. 185-186 Astronomical Calculations and the Count of Time ***
LUNAR ECLIPSES
Lunar eclipses, as found in Ptolemy’s canon and presumably drawn from data in the cuneiform records, have been used in efforts to substantiate the dates usually given for particular years of the Neo-Babylonian kings. But even though Ptolemy may have been able to calculate accurately the dates of certain eclipses in the past, this does not prove that his transmission of historical data is correct. His relating of eclipses to the reigns of certain kings may not always be based on the facts. Additionally, the frequency of lunar eclipses certainly does not add great strength to this type of confirmation.
For example, a lunar eclipse in 621 B.C.E. (April 22) is used as proof of the correctness of the Ptolemaic date for Nabopolassar’s fifth year. However, another eclipse could be cited twenty years earlier in 641 B.C.E. (June 1) to correspond with the date that Bible chronology would indicate for Nabopolassar’s fifth year. Besides, this latter eclipse was total, whereas the one in 621 B.C.E. was partial.
To me, that's just embarrassing. I don't think it was 'deviant scholarship' as @Arauna would have called it had I made a similar mistake. I think it was just grasping at any straws possible to sow seeds of doubt in Ptolemy's work. The problem, of course, is that Ptolemy said it was partial, and it shows up as partial in my software exactly as Ptolemy reported. But the Watchtower claimed that a better one 20 years earlier would be a TOTAL eclipse. In other words, someone in the Writing Dept found a reference, or went to the trouble themselves to find an eclipse exactly 20 years earlier (necessary to feed the 1914 theory) and somehow overlooked the fact that they were choosing a NON-matching eclipse over the matching eclipse. Rolf Furuli made the exact same attempt with lunar information from Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and made some of the same "wishful-thinking" errors over and over again.  
 

I'm not the one saying it is significant. I'm only saying that all evidence so far consistently points to 587 BCE as the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It's up to you to decide whether that fact has any significance:
(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem, . . .
 

The gods must be crazy. I thought that movie was great!
The Gods Must Be Crazy (1980 film) The tribal people in a remote African desert live a happy life, but it is all torn to pieces when a Coca-Cola bottle falls from a plane. With the villagers fighting over the strange foreign object, tribal leader Xi (N!xau) decides to take the bottle back to the gods to restore peace.
I saw the Broadway play 'The Book of Mormon" and was reminded of the same movie.

Thanks @George88 for the details from Britton: "An Early Observation Text for Mars:"

I don't know how many people have tried this, but you can create a kind of time-lapse "movie" with several of these astronomy applications (software) by simply pointing in a fixed, specific direction (il.e. due West) but zooming out to get a picture of the entire night sky and setting the time to give you a picture of what it looked like at say 9pm Babylon time (or Baghdad, Iraq or thereabouts). Then you quickly click through days going either forward or backward to watch the movements of the planets and the changing path and phases of the moon. On some apps you can just hold down the arrow key and run through about 20 days per second, creating a kind of movie showing the new position for 9pm every day.
What is most interesting is the path of planets like Mars when they move at a steady pace across the sky from night to night, but then will slow down to almost no movement and smoothly changes direction. (Mars in retrograde.) It makes you wonder just how closely the ancient astronomer/astrologers were able to figure out exactly when it turned retrograde because it slows down so much. It's like the date for the Roman Sol Invictus being around December 25 when accurate measurements show that the Winter Solstice was actually on December 21/22. (The idea, of course, is that the hours of sunlight in a day got shorter and shorter, but by December 25 they were sure the days were getting longer again.) 
You might expect a similar 3-day delay in determining Mars in retrograde. And this is pretty much what happens with the earliest Mars readings:

 
What I am talking about is in the second paragraph above where you would expect the observation to be "late by several days" which is exactly what happened for the ancient measurement of when "Mars stood still."
I included the paragraph above just to show that if you are using the software, and yours doesn't have "Babylon" you will be off by no more than a day if you pick a modern city closer to Baghdad or a different city 100 miles away.  

I'm not the one saying it is significant. I'm only saying that all evidence so far consistently points to 587 BCE as the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It's up to you to decide whether that fact has any significance:
(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem, . . .
 

Because of the need for the WTS publications to sow seeds of doubt about Ptolemy, the Watchtower made the following statement about that same 621 BCE eclipse. The mistake they made is pretty obvious once you have seen Ptolemy's writing.
*** w69 3/15 pp. 185-186 Astronomical Calculations and the Count of Time ***
LUNAR ECLIPSES
Lunar eclipses, as found in Ptolemy’s canon and presumably drawn from data in the cuneiform records, have been used in efforts to substantiate the dates usually given for particular years of the Neo-Babylonian kings. But even though Ptolemy may have been able to calculate accurately the dates of certain eclipses in the past, this does not prove that his transmission of historical data is correct. His relating of eclipses to the reigns of certain kings may not always be based on the facts. Additionally, the frequency of lunar eclipses certainly does not add great strength to this type of confirmation.
For example, a lunar eclipse in 621 B.C.E. (April 22) is used as proof of the correctness of the Ptolemaic date for Nabopolassar’s fifth year. However, another eclipse could be cited twenty years earlier in 641 B.C.E. (June 1) to correspond with the date that Bible chronology would indicate for Nabopolassar’s fifth year. Besides, this latter eclipse was total, whereas the one in 621 B.C.E. was partial.
To me, that's just embarrassing. I don't think it was 'deviant scholarship' as @Arauna would have called it had I made a similar mistake. I think it was just grasping at any straws possible to sow seeds of doubt in Ptolemy's work. The problem, of course, is that Ptolemy said it was partial, and it shows up as partial in my software exactly as Ptolemy reported. But the Watchtower claimed that a better one 20 years earlier would be a TOTAL eclipse. In other words, someone in the Writing Dept found a reference, or went to the trouble themselves to find an eclipse exactly 20 years earlier (necessary to feed the 1914 theory) and somehow overlooked the fact that they were choosing a NON-matching eclipse over the matching eclipse. Rolf Furuli made the exact same attempt with lunar information from Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and made some of the same "wishful-thinking" errors over and over again.  
 

Makes you wonder why the only definitive way they determine Cambyses 7th year, then, is through eclipses, doesn't it.
The fact that a two hundred years later, Greeks trusted the same Babylonian chronology which was based heavily on astronomy, and began attaching Babylonian chronology to their own calendar systems, is also revealing. (Archonships and Olympiads).
Read what you quoted carefully and you will see that it is really saying that the ONLY real information that ties to BCE dates is Ptolemy, and contemporary cuneiform [business] tablets. With Ptolemy it was the eclipse and the King List (Ptolemy's "Royal" Canon). Diodorus, Africans, and Eusebius, who come onto the picture MUCH LATER, are indirectly relying on the same Babylonian records.
The later attempts to tie dates from Babylonian records back into the Olympiads had variable results. Here are some of them, that refer to the Olympiad era of dating:
-------------------
[evidence says 562 not 572]
[That last  highlighted one seems perfectly in accord with current astronomical evidence, that Josiah died in 609 BCE and Cyrus first year was 70 years later, in 539 BCE.]
The idea was apparently that 70 years for Babylonian domination was 609 to 539 and the 70 years of desolation on the city and temple would have been about 590 to 520 -- see Zechariah 1 :12 & 7:4,
[This is accurately counted from the first year of Nebuchadnezzar as stated in Daniel 1:1]
[off only by about 4 years, since Nineveh evidently fell in 612 BCE]
[645 - 32 = 612?]
Note that if the 55th Olympiad is 560 (which it is) then the 47th is as little as 28/29 years earlier, or 588-589 BCE. Right about the time when Nebuchadnezzar would have begun the siege ending in 587 BCE.
------------------
It's curious, isn't it, that many of the same ones who were using the Olympiad method of dating put the destruction of the Temple around -590.
590 is only a couple of years from 587 BCE, and not so far off from the siege of the city which would have begun closer to 589 BCE. 
This must be why so many early "historians" and "chronographers" trying to place the end of the 70 years of Judea's servitude ended it closer to 520:
--------------
Josephus first went with the common-sense idea that the 70 years began with the destruction of Jerusalem and ended with the conquering of Babylon by Cyrus. But his final work after a couple more decades of quoting from sources made him change that chronology to say that there were only 50 years between those two events. That would mean one of two things; that the 70 years started with the fall of Assyria when Babylon became a world power and ended when Persia became the world power. Or it was a separate 70 years (Zechariah) that started with the destruction of the Temple and ended with the rebuilding of it in Zerubbabel's time.
Sorry for the messy formatting. Trying to work from an iPhone. My laptop is back home.

A high academic standard, yes. He graduated from MIT. But he left a trail of insults on this forum that would make a sailor blush. And that was mostly in response to foolish goading from @scholar JWand back and forth escalations of insults between him and [username="César Chávez"], it's not like people were generally cursing at him and he was just responding in kind. 
"César Chávez" is still with us here by the way, under different user names. (For those who care, that apparently also includes the JW Closed Club, so far just as an auditor, not a participant.)

Because of the need for the WTS publications to sow seeds of doubt about Ptolemy, the Watchtower made the following statement about that same 621 BCE eclipse. The mistake they made is pretty obvious once you have seen Ptolemy's writing.
*** w69 3/15 pp. 185-186 Astronomical Calculations and the Count of Time ***
LUNAR ECLIPSES
Lunar eclipses, as found in Ptolemy’s canon and presumably drawn from data in the cuneiform records, have been used in efforts to substantiate the dates usually given for particular years of the Neo-Babylonian kings. But even though Ptolemy may have been able to calculate accurately the dates of certain eclipses in the past, this does not prove that his transmission of historical data is correct. His relating of eclipses to the reigns of certain kings may not always be based on the facts. Additionally, the frequency of lunar eclipses certainly does not add great strength to this type of confirmation.
For example, a lunar eclipse in 621 B.C.E. (April 22) is used as proof of the correctness of the Ptolemaic date for Nabopolassar’s fifth year. However, another eclipse could be cited twenty years earlier in 641 B.C.E. (June 1) to correspond with the date that Bible chronology would indicate for Nabopolassar’s fifth year. Besides, this latter eclipse was total, whereas the one in 621 B.C.E. was partial.
To me, that's just embarrassing. I don't think it was 'deviant scholarship' as @Arauna would have called it had I made a similar mistake. I think it was just grasping at any straws possible to sow seeds of doubt in Ptolemy's work. The problem, of course, is that Ptolemy said it was partial, and it shows up as partial in my software exactly as Ptolemy reported. But the Watchtower claimed that a better one 20 years earlier would be a TOTAL eclipse. In other words, someone in the Writing Dept found a reference, or went to the trouble themselves to find an eclipse exactly 20 years earlier (necessary to feed the 1914 theory) and somehow overlooked the fact that they were choosing a NON-matching eclipse over the matching eclipse. Rolf Furuli made the exact same attempt with lunar information from Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and made some of the same "wishful-thinking" errors over and over again.  
 

@xero, I think in your checking of eclipse lists for the time, you are aware that Ptolemy's Almagest also recorded this one which exactly matches 21/22 April 621 BC:
As you are aware, the 5th year of Nabopolassar in 621 BCE puts the 14th year of Nabopolassar in 612 BCE.
In the 5th year of Nabopolassar (127th year from Nabonassar, 27/28 Athyr of the Egyptian calendar a lunar eclipse began at the end of the 11th hour in Babylon. The maximum obscuration was 1/4 of the diameter from the south (Almagest V 14). Here is the translated text from the Almagest itself. He runs an era going all the way back to Nabonassar, and with some of his readings he also includes the time from the death of Alexander the Great AND Nabonassar AND the parallel Egyptian calendar AND to the archonship era in Athens.
Below I also included the first portion of the next eclipse he records regarding Cyrus' son Cambyses, it's one of the two that the "Insight" book uses to date Cyrus. Of course the WTS publications don't tell you that it is also found in Ptolemy, for obvious reasons. Ptolemy lists 10 Babylonian eclipses and 4 of them have already been found duplicated in cuneiform tablets from Babylon:
https://classicalliberalarts.com/resources/PTOLEMY_ALMAGEST_ENGLISH.pdf
page 253:

 

The gods must be crazy. I thought that movie was great!
The Gods Must Be Crazy (1980 film) The tribal people in a remote African desert live a happy life, but it is all torn to pieces when a Coca-Cola bottle falls from a plane. With the villagers fighting over the strange foreign object, tribal leader Xi (N!xau) decides to take the bottle back to the gods to restore peace.
I saw the Broadway play 'The Book of Mormon" and was reminded of the same movie.

The trouble with those who worship critical thinking is that they often presume they have a lock on the stuff. He did not suffer fools gladly, and a fool was anyone who disagreed with him.
To be sure, I used to egg him on a little. But I would later regret it. The self-congratulatory donkey could chew up an entire day.

Those particular two events are simply Saros interpolations, which won't make as much sense as direct evidence until we are ready to re-build the entire king list and test it against the known ancient "spreadsheets" of Saros eclipses (LBAT 1415, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420 & 1421) listing them for every "18 years" -- and then combined with evidence from another document. This was why I wanted to start with Nebuchadnezzar and then work backward and forward from there. 
However, I can do one better. It turns out that I was wrong when I said there were no observations/events associated with  Nabopolassar's 14th year. I had stopped looking at further astronomical readings when I was satisfied I had seen enough to assure myself. 
But there may be a couple more, one of which should touch on Nabopolassar's 14th:
https://www.jenseits-des-horizonts.de/download_pdf/bsa_044_04.pdf



So it's those first two tablets, referenced in the footnotes 3 & 4. The first is Hunger, Sachs, and Steele, No 52.
That tablet is reported elsewhere to show observations for:
Nabopolassar  7 = 619 BCE Nabopolassar 12 = 614 BCE Nabopolassar 13 = 613 BCE Nabopolassar 14 = 612 BCE [edited to add: possibly stops at Nab 13=613BCE] Since the above PDF shows the readings stopping in 613 and doesn't include Nabopolassar 14 = 612 BCE, perhaps it is partly cut off or damaged at that point. Or the readings go past December of 613 still in the same regnal year 613, but technically 612. I haven't seen a picture of it, although I might have a photocopy of the correct pages of Hermann Hunger's "Astronomical Diaries and Texts V" in my files from a time I copied several pages from those volumes at the NYPL Reference Library. I kind of doubt I have it though, because I knew nothing about this one when I did my readings for the posts here: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/?do=findComment&comment=152186 
Another one, (Text Number 5) related to the above, is also in Hermann Hunger's Astronomical Diaries and Texts V, and it has the year of the king (16) but not the name of the king. It reports an eclipse that matches September 15, 610 BCE. That is of course the 16th year of Nabopolassar, as it lands right there in among the readings above in Text Number 52.
I'm out of state right now, but will check these out for myself in a few days.

AlanF commented quite often on this forum when he was alive. He and @scholar JW had a history going back for many years —decades—according to scholar JW. Same with Ann O’maly whom scholar JW also appeared to have communicated with for many past years. 
I hated AlanF’s position on evolution and complete dismissal of much of Genesis but I appreciated that both he and Ann O’maly were much more knowledgeable about neo-Babylonian chronology that I am. By a long shot. They both corrected me publicly with good evidence on several mistakes I made here while learning the topic. I always appreciate corrections by anyone, even a "public reproof." 

Those particular two events are simply Saros interpolations, which won't make as much sense as direct evidence until we are ready to re-build the entire king list and test it against the known ancient "spreadsheets" of Saros eclipses (LBAT 1415, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420 & 1421) listing them for every "18 years" -- and then combined with evidence from another document. This was why I wanted to start with Nebuchadnezzar and then work backward and forward from there. 
However, I can do one better. It turns out that I was wrong when I said there were no observations/events associated with  Nabopolassar's 14th year. I had stopped looking at further astronomical readings when I was satisfied I had seen enough to assure myself. 
But there may be a couple more, one of which should touch on Nabopolassar's 14th:
https://www.jenseits-des-horizonts.de/download_pdf/bsa_044_04.pdf



So it's those first two tablets, referenced in the footnotes 3 & 4. The first is Hunger, Sachs, and Steele, No 52.
That tablet is reported elsewhere to show observations for:
Nabopolassar  7 = 619 BCE Nabopolassar 12 = 614 BCE Nabopolassar 13 = 613 BCE Nabopolassar 14 = 612 BCE [edited to add: possibly stops at Nab 13=613BCE] Since the above PDF shows the readings stopping in 613 and doesn't include Nabopolassar 14 = 612 BCE, perhaps it is partly cut off or damaged at that point. Or the readings go past December of 613 still in the same regnal year 613, but technically 612. I haven't seen a picture of it, although I might have a photocopy of the correct pages of Hermann Hunger's "Astronomical Diaries and Texts V" in my files from a time I copied several pages from those volumes at the NYPL Reference Library. I kind of doubt I have it though, because I knew nothing about this one when I did my readings for the posts here: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/?do=findComment&comment=152186 
Another one, (Text Number 5) related to the above, is also in Hermann Hunger's Astronomical Diaries and Texts V, and it has the year of the king (16) but not the name of the king. It reports an eclipse that matches September 15, 610 BCE. That is of course the 16th year of Nabopolassar, as it lands right there in among the readings above in Text Number 52.
I'm out of state right now, but will check these out for myself in a few days.

AlanF would talk about Neo-Babylonian chronology until my eyes glazed and my ears were bleeding, and he'd still only be at the start of what he wanted to share. I'd have to open a bottle of fine wine and break off a piece of well-molded and stinky cheese to get him on another topic so I could rest.

AlanF commented quite often on this forum when he was alive. He and @scholar JW had a history going back for many years —decades—according to scholar JW. Same with Ann O’maly whom scholar JW also appeared to have communicated with for many past years. 
I hated AlanF’s position on evolution and complete dismissal of much of Genesis but I appreciated that both he and Ann O’maly were much more knowledgeable about neo-Babylonian chronology that I am. By a long shot. They both corrected me publicly with good evidence on several mistakes I made here while learning the topic. I always appreciate corrections by anyone, even a "public reproof." 

No. I don’t know what controversy you mean. Sorry. 
 
And I hope you will say something about how you are faring these days. Hadn’t heard from you in quite a while. 

No. I don’t know what controversy you mean. Sorry. 
 
And I hope you will say something about how you are faring these days. Hadn’t heard from you in quite a while.