JW Insider

I think I understand the sentiment of this first idea, that there was something appealing about being able to know the Bible's "historical sweep" of 6,000 years, and even the fact that the Bible had left enough internal evidence to count large unbroken portions of this chronology without any required references to secular support. (From Adam to Zedekiah, as it were.)  With a little help from interpretation and some secular "tent-pins" we could even reach from Adam to Jesus and fit all this into a chronological framework that included the Creation, the Flood, the Exodus, the Davidic kingdom, the coming of the Messiah, the destruction of Jerusalem and it's Temple, The Return/Rebuilding, second destruction in 70 C.E., the probable timing of Paul's missionary journeys, etc.
I was not the type of person back in 1966 to think that any of us were supposed to speculate. I heard the talk about 1975 at the 1966 summer district convention, probably twice. I thought that maturity meant that we studied the publications, reasoned on them, and then made solid decisions based on accurate knowledge. My brother was 11 and I was 9 and we both were assigned in 1966 to read the book "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God." and "Things in which it is Impossible for God to Lie." If we read these books and studied all the baptism questions in the book "Your Word is a Lamp to My Foot" then we would both be ready for baptism in the spring 1967 circuit assembly, although we both waited until the summer convention. I don't remember personally thinking much about 1975 back in 1966 even when I read the "Life Everlasting" book that covered the topic. I read it as saying that we should be ready for Armageddon because it could happen sooner than we think. The goal, I thought, was to remind those who weren't taking Armageddon seriously, to remember that even the chronology shows that it might be "later than you think." I really didn't think that anyone was supposed to read the book and begin saying that Armageddon was going to happen in 1975.
I don't recall any "hysteria" either. There were those who took it more seriously than others, but prior to 1975, I don't really remember anyone trying to point out exactly why they were taking it more seriously based on specific wording in the publications that they had caught and other people had missed. My mother was of the opinion that Armageddon would more likely take place in 1974 or 1976 because if it happened in 1975 that's when everyone would be expecting it, and it has to come when we are NOT expecting it. Once I told her that if she could just convince everyone that this was true, then it couldn't happen in 1974 or 1976 either, could it?
This is probably correct. And I'm sure it happened that some were trying to show how the Watchtower was not being specific about Armageddon in 1975, even though we had heard about 4 District Overseers be as specific as Brother Sinutko. (My father would take us to two district assemblies per year because his work on the Sound systems kept him from paying close attention to the content. So we'd take one assembly in the Midwest and then we'd go back to California for two weeks to visit relatives and take in an assembly while we were out there. My California grandparents or circuit-overeer uncle were always sending us copies of the special talks and I think I heard about three other Sinutko-styled talks: similar content, but without his dramatic delivery. Then I remember the circuit overseers would give at least one talk per visit from about 1968 to 1971 that emphasized that there could have been very little time between Adam's and Eve's creation, just months or even weeks. I believe it was 1969 when the circuit assembly talk on 'the time left is reduced' included a big chart of the the number of months left between 1969 and October 1975. That same idea was used at another assembly. My father had a talk at an assembly in 1970 where he let slip a reminder that none of us should get so excited that we stop taking care of our teeth, for example, because "no one knows the day or the hour." He added the scripture from Matthew 24:36. The District Overseer was angry and met with my father and the circuit overseer telling my father  that this was not the spirit of the talk, which was to encourage excitement. The District Overseer read him the Watchtower from two years prior:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. My father got counseled for "toying" with the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:36 by adding them to an assembly talk. And he was not assigned another circuit assembly part for 3 years.
I also saw my father counsel another elder who worked for him, and who had seemingly gone overboard and had begun embarrassing him (and all other Witnesses for that matter) by starting to preach to others who came into my father's office and one of the labs my father ran at the University of Missouri. He was preaching 1975 explicitly. This brother and his wife had been Gilead missionaries back home from Ecuador when they were expecting their first baby.  My father gave him a part time job in the afternoons, and I also came back after a day of pioneering at 3:00 to work (aka "play") in the electronics labs for a couple hours. I remember this was the first work day in January 1975 and he was announcing to people that this was the year for Armageddon. This was the first time I heard a brother (fellow elder) talk to my father using argumentation from the actual wording of Watchtower publications that he was convinced were saying something more than conjecture. It was just that the Watchtower, for some reason, didn't want to word it so explicitly that it would sound like a prophecy. It was left for us to notice the clues, he thought. I can't remember any of the exact examples this elder had used. But it was clear that his general position was that it was the more astute brothers who were seeing it, and it was a serious thing to take notice, and that only the weaker, less spiritually mature Witnesses were downplaying the idea.
I disagreed and took my father's side on this. I remember only shrugging, having nothing to say when the brother looked over to me for some agreement. It was as if he was sure his argument was winning, and he was saying to me "I'm right! Right? You can see it. Right?"  I don't remember my father even looking at me, or talking about it with him. Now I wonder if he thought he had been counseled for actually missing something, but he held his ground through the rest of the year. I remember my brother and my mother would also discuss it because my brother had started a business in 1974 which was doing very well, and I went to work for him for a year before going to Bethel. My father would always encourage the business, and my mother was afraid that starting a business, especially a successful one, was a scary thing that would make him forget about 1975. My brother sold his business 3 years later and got to Bethel after me, even though 2 years older.
But my mother was not caught up in any hysteria either. As I said, I don't remember any "Armageddon Ernie" types. I don't even think anyone was really speculating in any negative sense. It's just that there were two ways to read the statements in the Watchtower from about 1966 to 1973. By 1974, the Watchtower was clearly downplaying the earlier rhetoric, so looking back I'd say the highest level of "speculation" was the idea that this "downplaying" was only for the outside public, but that we, on the inside, were supposed to continue "knowing" secretly that the earlier statements were still in effect. Of course, none of this means that the Watchtower ever predicted 1975 for Armageddon. The prediction, except for a few circuit and district overseer statements, were not about 1975, per se, but about the fact that the system could not go on more than a few months or years beyond 1975. It wasn't about what 1975 would bring, but: What will the 1970's bring?:

 

I think I understand the sentiment of this first idea, that there was something appealing about being able to know the Bible's "historical sweep" of 6,000 years, and even the fact that the Bible had left enough internal evidence to count large unbroken portions of this chronology without any required references to secular support. (From Adam to Zedekiah, as it were.)  With a little help from interpretation and some secular "tent-pins" we could even reach from Adam to Jesus and fit all this into a chronological framework that included the Creation, the Flood, the Exodus, the Davidic kingdom, the coming of the Messiah, the destruction of Jerusalem and it's Temple, The Return/Rebuilding, second destruction in 70 C.E., the probable timing of Paul's missionary journeys, etc.
I was not the type of person back in 1966 to think that any of us were supposed to speculate. I heard the talk about 1975 at the 1966 summer district convention, probably twice. I thought that maturity meant that we studied the publications, reasoned on them, and then made solid decisions based on accurate knowledge. My brother was 11 and I was 9 and we both were assigned in 1966 to read the book "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God." and "Things in which it is Impossible for God to Lie." If we read these books and studied all the baptism questions in the book "Your Word is a Lamp to My Foot" then we would both be ready for baptism in the spring 1967 circuit assembly, although we both waited until the summer convention. I don't remember personally thinking much about 1975 back in 1966 even when I read the "Life Everlasting" book that covered the topic. I read it as saying that we should be ready for Armageddon because it could happen sooner than we think. The goal, I thought, was to remind those who weren't taking Armageddon seriously, to remember that even the chronology shows that it might be "later than you think." I really didn't think that anyone was supposed to read the book and begin saying that Armageddon was going to happen in 1975.
I don't recall any "hysteria" either. There were those who took it more seriously than others, but prior to 1975, I don't really remember anyone trying to point out exactly why they were taking it more seriously based on specific wording in the publications that they had caught and other people had missed. My mother was of the opinion that Armageddon would more likely take place in 1974 or 1976 because if it happened in 1975 that's when everyone would be expecting it, and it has to come when we are NOT expecting it. Once I told her that if she could just convince everyone that this was true, then it couldn't happen in 1974 or 1976 either, could it?
This is probably correct. And I'm sure it happened that some were trying to show how the Watchtower was not being specific about Armageddon in 1975, even though we had heard about 4 District Overseers be as specific as Brother Sinutko. (My father would take us to two district assemblies per year because his work on the Sound systems kept him from paying close attention to the content. So we'd take one assembly in the Midwest and then we'd go back to California for two weeks to visit relatives and take in an assembly while we were out there. My California grandparents or circuit-overeer uncle were always sending us copies of the special talks and I think I heard about three other Sinutko-styled talks: similar content, but without his dramatic delivery. Then I remember the circuit overseers would give at least one talk per visit from about 1968 to 1971 that emphasized that there could have been very little time between Adam's and Eve's creation, just months or even weeks. I believe it was 1969 when the circuit assembly talk on 'the time left is reduced' included a big chart of the the number of months left between 1969 and October 1975. That same idea was used at another assembly. My father had a talk at an assembly in 1970 where he let slip a reminder that none of us should get so excited that we stop taking care of our teeth, for example, because "no one knows the day or the hour." He added the scripture from Matthew 24:36. The District Overseer was angry and met with my father and the circuit overseer telling my father  that this was not the spirit of the talk, which was to encourage excitement. The District Overseer read him the Watchtower from two years prior:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. My father got counseled for "toying" with the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:36 by adding them to an assembly talk. And he was not assigned another circuit assembly part for 3 years.
I also saw my father counsel another elder who worked for him, and who had seemingly gone overboard and had begun embarrassing him (and all other Witnesses for that matter) by starting to preach to others who came into my father's office and one of the labs my father ran at the University of Missouri. He was preaching 1975 explicitly. This brother and his wife had been Gilead missionaries back home from Ecuador when they were expecting their first baby.  My father gave him a part time job in the afternoons, and I also came back after a day of pioneering at 3:00 to work (aka "play") in the electronics labs for a couple hours. I remember this was the first work day in January 1975 and he was announcing to people that this was the year for Armageddon. This was the first time I heard a brother (fellow elder) talk to my father using argumentation from the actual wording of Watchtower publications that he was convinced were saying something more than conjecture. It was just that the Watchtower, for some reason, didn't want to word it so explicitly that it would sound like a prophecy. It was left for us to notice the clues, he thought. I can't remember any of the exact examples this elder had used. But it was clear that his general position was that it was the more astute brothers who were seeing it, and it was a serious thing to take notice, and that only the weaker, less spiritually mature Witnesses were downplaying the idea.
I disagreed and took my father's side on this. I remember only shrugging, having nothing to say when the brother looked over to me for some agreement. It was as if he was sure his argument was winning, and he was saying to me "I'm right! Right? You can see it. Right?"  I don't remember my father even looking at me, or talking about it with him. Now I wonder if he thought he had been counseled for actually missing something, but he held his ground through the rest of the year. I remember my brother and my mother would also discuss it because my brother had started a business in 1974 which was doing very well, and I went to work for him for a year before going to Bethel. My father would always encourage the business, and my mother was afraid that starting a business, especially a successful one, was a scary thing that would make him forget about 1975. My brother sold his business 3 years later and got to Bethel after me, even though 2 years older.
But my mother was not caught up in any hysteria either. As I said, I don't remember any "Armageddon Ernie" types. I don't even think anyone was really speculating in any negative sense. It's just that there were two ways to read the statements in the Watchtower from about 1966 to 1973. By 1974, the Watchtower was clearly downplaying the earlier rhetoric, so looking back I'd say the highest level of "speculation" was the idea that this "downplaying" was only for the outside public, but that we, on the inside, were supposed to continue "knowing" secretly that the earlier statements were still in effect. Of course, none of this means that the Watchtower ever predicted 1975 for Armageddon. The prediction, except for a few circuit and district overseer statements, were not about 1975, per se, but about the fact that the system could not go on more than a few months or years beyond 1975. It wasn't about what 1975 would bring, but: What will the 1970's bring?:

 

Thanks for the setup . . . 
The Moon orbits Earth at a speed of 2,288 miles per hour (3,683 kilometers per hour). During this time it travels a distance of 1,423,000 miles (2,290,000 kilometers).   Some guns shoot bullets at only 800 miles per hour. So the moon is also "faster than a speeding bullet" and of course it's more powerful than a locomotive. It's odd to think that when NASA sent men to the moon, they were landing on a very fast "bullet."

I highly doubt would've approved of Noah if he was a drunk. I think it's a lot more likely that his drunken incident was isolated and not indicative of his regular behavior. Noah was only human, and I can't imagine the PTSD of being the sole family to survive a worldwide cataclysm. I would drink.

If our goal is to get people back, why would we treat them like they don't exist at our meetings? Outside of the meetings I can understand why our association should be limited, but our meetings seem like the one place where we should be supporting a spiritually weak individual.
Sorry how do I go about that?

I fixed it twice, and each time I checked it, it had stayed the same -- my fix didn't take. I just finally fixed it and it looks like it will stay this time.
The twist on your picture is, of course, from the Superman series, which always included the words:
Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. The infant of Krypton is now the Man of Steel: Superman!   -- Superman (1941) - Quotes - IMDb

I believe it's already been calculated, and refers to a time that the Bible has already clarified. And if I'm wrong, which is both possible and likely -- me being human and all -- then it can refer to a time period that will be recognized when it happens. Nothing to calculate from it, and no chronology necessary.
Nowhere does the Bible say we have to calculate any of this. There was no mistake. In fact, if we read both Daniel and Revelation carefully we can see why there is nothing for us to calculate. But this, at this point, is just an interpretation which is not necessary to defend here. What I'm stating is just an opinion. I can try to defend it elsewhere under a topic about Daniel and Revelation.
I doubt that any JWs really wholeheartedly believe what is currently taught about these time periods, otherwise we would be interested in what exactly was said in those books and assemblies. As it is, we are typically ashamed of the actual contents of those books and assembly speeches, and are forced to only pick and choose sentences out of context. If we really believed that Jesus Christ saw something in the content of those particular assemblies, we would be clamoring to look at whatever Jesus looked at to see if we could better understand the "mind of Christ." Instead, we are satisfied with the idea that, even if most of what was said in the key speeches of those assemblies was false doctrine, or even false prophecies, Jesus still saw their heart condition and was able to ignore the specific things they were saying and focus on the fact that we had been promoting a fairly unique set of core doctrines that were important and true. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the core doctrines that had been true both before and after these assemblies and publications of the time. But our core doctrines were not relevant to the reasons we identify these specific periods in history.
Sorry to skip much of your own presentation about the need to calculate other points of reference. I don't see the need to calculate any of these time periods in advance, or be overly concerned over what they might have meant in the past. I keep commenting on my own view of these periods and then erasing it. I'll be happy to do this under another topic, however.

Yes. I've seen some of your proposed math. But I am a strong believer in Paul's words that we need nothing to be written to us about the times and seasons (1Th 5:1). This must mean that there is nothing left to calculate. The very last prophecy that hung on a time calculation was the destruction of Jerusalem, when Jesus said it would happen that armies would encamp around Jerusalem in that same generation, before the people who heard him had died out. And it happened about 34 years after Jesus predicted it to come upon that generation. After that destruction the sign had occurred and the stage was set for Jesus' parousia to appear at any time, but that it would be a bright and shining parousia like lightning, Jesus says. He also says that the parousia will come as a surprise, as unpredictable and unannounced as a thief in the night. People would be going about their business, marrying and being given in marriage, and yet that day of the parousia would come upon them as surprising as the day when the flood came in Noah's time, or when the fire came in Lot's time. Right up until the time when the parousia appears, people will be saying "where is this promised parousia of his?" while most people are still going about their business much the same way as they have since the beginning of time. 

All right, dear JW Insider, I will be happy to have a constructive conversation, in the light of the Scriptures, on these calculations and points of reference.
I would like to point out a contradiction in your words (if I have understood well from the translation).
If you admit that the 1260, 1290 and 1335 were not about assemblies or resolutions, they obviously concern something else, right?
Have you already got an idea of what these days could be?
is it something past or future?
If it were something future, it is obvious that "from a certain point" we need to start calculating, is not it?
If, instead, it is something past, we should be able to understand what the prophecy referred to (you yourself said that "we will understand it later").
However now I am coming out of the original article (which is dedicated to 1975). So I leave you with these questions.
I wish you the best

This is not unlike the 'Six Stages of a Project' that used to be cynically posted at the workplace:
1) Enthusiasm
2) Disillusionment
3) Panic
4) Hunt for the Guilty
5) Punishment of the Innocent
6) Praise and Honors for the Nonparticipants.

I thought it would be a good idea to look into the ways in which we defend ourselves against the claims about 1975, and the way in which we answer questions about it. As a good example I will start with the way in which a person answered a 1975 challenge on YAHOO ANSWERS. The person signed their name as BAR-ANERGES. I'll assume the person is male. He is evidently not a member of this forum, and may no longer be alive, for all I know. But if anyone knows him, or his whereabouts, I hope he gets a chance to respond himself.
I'll just make some short comments to state my own opinion of what he said. I'll mark his words in a different color, like red.
It is an absolute lie to claim that the Witnesses said that Armageddon would come in 1975. He's right that it is incorrect to claim that "the Witnesses said that Armageddon would come in 1975." For a couple of reasons.
The most important reason is that this supposed claim is a kind of "straw man" that is worded in such a way that it diverts attention from the main point. It's true that no Witnesses should have been saying that Armageddon would come in 1975, in the sense that it must definitely come in 1975. The real question should be whether the claim is true that Jehovah's Witnesses promoted the idea that the Bible had marked the year 1975 in such a way that we could confidently claim that Armageddon should be expected within just a few years, or even just a few months, from the year 1975. Did Jehovah's Witnesses make use of this particular time period that focused on the year 1975 to justify the claim that people should decide quickly to convert and join the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses for safety from imminent destruction at Armageddon? Also, the term "the Witnesses" can refer to a wide range of people and opinions. If we accept that the views of the Witnesses are represented in Watchtower publications, then we also have to accept that not everything said about 1975 was completely consistent. If we accept that the views of the Witnesses are represented by the Watchtower's traveling representatives (circuit overseers, district overseers, branch representatives, Watch Tower Society directors, Governing Body, etc.) then again we have to accept that not everything said about 1975 was completely consistent. Anna has already pointed out that Charles Sinutko's infamous talk is not even consistent within itself.  Here is an article from *1974* that I carry around with me which shows what mature Witnesses knew and were saying: This statement should raise a red flag immediately. We already know that not everything that was said or written was consistent. So we should be immediately wary of making use of one specific statement to generalize what "mature Witnesses knew and were saying." Also, if we look carefully at all the statements in the Watchtower publications from 1966 to 1975 we can see that by October 1974 the trend of the statements about 1975 had already begun to be more cautious. The most direct statements were made from 1968 to 1973. This is a typical pattern with predictions. It happens in corporations, political and economic analysis, and religion:
The initial idea is floated, often with a bit of caution. Then someone is sure enough to begin championing the prediction and begins to stake their reputation on it. Then as confidence builds, those statements become more and more direct and less careful. Then as the time approaches and the kinds of surrounding expectations that might have validated the prediction aren't there yet, real caution kicks in, and if necessary, some backtracking begins. After the failure is obvious, we can expect blame and finger-pointing. Statements about the time period dating back to 1956 were in stage #1. Statements in 1966 were already in stage #2. Dozens of district overseers and circuit overseers along with statements by the service department until 1973 were in stage #3. F.W.Franz himself appeared to remain in stage #3 until 1975, but he also had vacillated into stage #4 at times during the 1974-1975 period. The 1974 summer assemblies, and the 1974 Watchtower quoted here, were in stage #4. Stage #5 had already begun at Bethel as early as late 1975 and early 1976, even though the initial definition of the time period was not about what would happen in 1975, but what would happen in the short number of years or months following 1975.
"The publications of Jehovah's Witnesses have shown that, according to Bible chronology, it appears that 6,000 years of man's existence will be completed in the mid-1970's. But these publications HAVE NEVER SAID THAT THE WORLD'S END WOULD COME THEN. Nevertheless, there has been considerable individual speculation on the matter. So the assembly presentation "Why We Have Not Been Told ‘That Day and Hour'" was very timely. It emphasized that we do not know the exact time when God will bring the end."--w74 10/15 p. 635 "It appears" that 6,000 years of man's existence will be completed in the mid-1970's." Note the backtracking (stage #4). Note even some "finger-pointing" (stage#5) in blaming considerable "individual speculation." The 1966 book (see first post in this topic) said "Six thousand years since man's creation will end in 1975." It did not say "it appears." Now, the new Watchtower didn't even want to use the term "1975" but changed it to "mid-1970's." Previously the question had been "What will the 1970's bring?" But this brings up an important caveat about stage#3 and stage#4 above. As Witnesses, we had an internal policy and external policy. So even while we could expect the more "reckless" stage#3 statements in our own special meetings from traveling overseers, circuit assemblies, and service meetings -- we could expect more careful stage#4 statements when we addressed the public in Sunday public addresses at the same assemblies or district conventions. In preaching, we were careful in such a way that we could even use language that meant stage#4 to the public while we were simultaneously able to treat it as less careful stage#3 speech. Here's a subtle example from a 1970 Watchtower:
*** w70 4/15 p. 256 Announcements ***
WHAT WILL THE 1970’S BRING? Many believe that the 1970’s will see drastic changes in man’s affairs, some hoping for the better, others fearing the worst. What is your view? Whether good or bad, no man knows for sure unless Jehovah God himself reveals it. Will he do so? His own Word says, Yes! Through his prophet Amos, Jehovah has promised: “For the Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7) Do not guess! And do not be unprepared! Whatever the future holds, it can work to your good if you read the Bible regularly, assisted by The Watchtower. Send today. One year, $1. Write now and receive free three timely booklets on Bible subjects. While we were not stating it for sure to the public, internally we all knew what it means that Jehovah is revealing his confidential matter to his servants the prophets. We don't have to guess. We don't have to be unprepared. This is the same idea in Sinutko's talk, saying that "we don't have to guess." ( He said: "Well, we don't have to guess what the year 1975 means if we read the Watchtower. And don't wait 'till 1975. The door is going to be shut before then.")
Compare the 1970 announcement to the same type of announcement just 2 years earlier:
*** w68 4/15 p. 256 Announcements ***
WHAT DOES YOUR FUTURE HOLD? What will the future bring you? Will it bring you peace of mind and security? Will it bring you faith and favor with God? It can! Regular reading of the Bible and following its teachings closely will bring you this and more. To ensure your full appreciation and understanding of what you read you need The Watchtower also. Study it with your Bible and receive the greatest benefit from what lies ahead. Send at once and receive three timely booklets on Bible subjects. One year, $1. This type of ramping up of the rhetoric was common. There are several more examples.
I'll stop here for now, so this doesn't become impossibly long.

I believe it's already been calculated, and refers to a time that the Bible has already clarified. And if I'm wrong, which is both possible and likely -- me being human and all -- then it can refer to a time period that will be recognized when it happens. Nothing to calculate from it, and no chronology necessary.
Nowhere does the Bible say we have to calculate any of this. There was no mistake. In fact, if we read both Daniel and Revelation carefully we can see why there is nothing for us to calculate. But this, at this point, is just an interpretation which is not necessary to defend here. What I'm stating is just an opinion. I can try to defend it elsewhere under a topic about Daniel and Revelation.
I doubt that any JWs really wholeheartedly believe what is currently taught about these time periods, otherwise we would be interested in what exactly was said in those books and assemblies. As it is, we are typically ashamed of the actual contents of those books and assembly speeches, and are forced to only pick and choose sentences out of context. If we really believed that Jesus Christ saw something in the content of those particular assemblies, we would be clamoring to look at whatever Jesus looked at to see if we could better understand the "mind of Christ." Instead, we are satisfied with the idea that, even if most of what was said in the key speeches of those assemblies was false doctrine, or even false prophecies, Jesus still saw their heart condition and was able to ignore the specific things they were saying and focus on the fact that we had been promoting a fairly unique set of core doctrines that were important and true. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the core doctrines that had been true both before and after these assemblies and publications of the time. But our core doctrines were not relevant to the reasons we identify these specific periods in history.
Sorry to skip much of your own presentation about the need to calculate other points of reference. I don't see the need to calculate any of these time periods in advance, or be overly concerned over what they might have meant in the past. I keep commenting on my own view of these periods and then erasing it. I'll be happy to do this under another topic, however.

I thought it would be a good idea to look into the ways in which we defend ourselves against the claims about 1975, and the way in which we answer questions about it. As a good example I will start with the way in which a person answered a 1975 challenge on YAHOO ANSWERS. The person signed their name as BAR-ANERGES. I'll assume the person is male. He is evidently not a member of this forum, and may no longer be alive, for all I know. But if anyone knows him, or his whereabouts, I hope he gets a chance to respond himself.
I'll just make some short comments to state my own opinion of what he said. I'll mark his words in a different color, like red.
It is an absolute lie to claim that the Witnesses said that Armageddon would come in 1975. He's right that it is incorrect to claim that "the Witnesses said that Armageddon would come in 1975." For a couple of reasons.
The most important reason is that this supposed claim is a kind of "straw man" that is worded in such a way that it diverts attention from the main point. It's true that no Witnesses should have been saying that Armageddon would come in 1975, in the sense that it must definitely come in 1975. The real question should be whether the claim is true that Jehovah's Witnesses promoted the idea that the Bible had marked the year 1975 in such a way that we could confidently claim that Armageddon should be expected within just a few years, or even just a few months, from the year 1975. Did Jehovah's Witnesses make use of this particular time period that focused on the year 1975 to justify the claim that people should decide quickly to convert and join the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses for safety from imminent destruction at Armageddon? Also, the term "the Witnesses" can refer to a wide range of people and opinions. If we accept that the views of the Witnesses are represented in Watchtower publications, then we also have to accept that not everything said about 1975 was completely consistent. If we accept that the views of the Witnesses are represented by the Watchtower's traveling representatives (circuit overseers, district overseers, branch representatives, Watch Tower Society directors, Governing Body, etc.) then again we have to accept that not everything said about 1975 was completely consistent. Anna has already pointed out that Charles Sinutko's infamous talk is not even consistent within itself.  Here is an article from *1974* that I carry around with me which shows what mature Witnesses knew and were saying: This statement should raise a red flag immediately. We already know that not everything that was said or written was consistent. So we should be immediately wary of making use of one specific statement to generalize what "mature Witnesses knew and were saying." Also, if we look carefully at all the statements in the Watchtower publications from 1966 to 1975 we can see that by October 1974 the trend of the statements about 1975 had already begun to be more cautious. The most direct statements were made from 1968 to 1973. This is a typical pattern with predictions. It happens in corporations, political and economic analysis, and religion:
The initial idea is floated, often with a bit of caution. Then someone is sure enough to begin championing the prediction and begins to stake their reputation on it. Then as confidence builds, those statements become more and more direct and less careful. Then as the time approaches and the kinds of surrounding expectations that might have validated the prediction aren't there yet, real caution kicks in, and if necessary, some backtracking begins. After the failure is obvious, we can expect blame and finger-pointing. Statements about the time period dating back to 1956 were in stage #1. Statements in 1966 were already in stage #2. Dozens of district overseers and circuit overseers along with statements by the service department until 1973 were in stage #3. F.W.Franz himself appeared to remain in stage #3 until 1975, but he also had vacillated into stage #4 at times during the 1974-1975 period. The 1974 summer assemblies, and the 1974 Watchtower quoted here, were in stage #4. Stage #5 had already begun at Bethel as early as late 1975 and early 1976, even though the initial definition of the time period was not about what would happen in 1975, but what would happen in the short number of years or months following 1975.
"The publications of Jehovah's Witnesses have shown that, according to Bible chronology, it appears that 6,000 years of man's existence will be completed in the mid-1970's. But these publications HAVE NEVER SAID THAT THE WORLD'S END WOULD COME THEN. Nevertheless, there has been considerable individual speculation on the matter. So the assembly presentation "Why We Have Not Been Told ‘That Day and Hour'" was very timely. It emphasized that we do not know the exact time when God will bring the end."--w74 10/15 p. 635 "It appears" that 6,000 years of man's existence will be completed in the mid-1970's." Note the backtracking (stage #4). Note even some "finger-pointing" (stage#5) in blaming considerable "individual speculation." The 1966 book (see first post in this topic) said "Six thousand years since man's creation will end in 1975." It did not say "it appears." Now, the new Watchtower didn't even want to use the term "1975" but changed it to "mid-1970's." Previously the question had been "What will the 1970's bring?" But this brings up an important caveat about stage#3 and stage#4 above. As Witnesses, we had an internal policy and external policy. So even while we could expect the more "reckless" stage#3 statements in our own special meetings from traveling overseers, circuit assemblies, and service meetings -- we could expect more careful stage#4 statements when we addressed the public in Sunday public addresses at the same assemblies or district conventions. In preaching, we were careful in such a way that we could even use language that meant stage#4 to the public while we were simultaneously able to treat it as less careful stage#3 speech. Here's a subtle example from a 1970 Watchtower:
*** w70 4/15 p. 256 Announcements ***
WHAT WILL THE 1970’S BRING? Many believe that the 1970’s will see drastic changes in man’s affairs, some hoping for the better, others fearing the worst. What is your view? Whether good or bad, no man knows for sure unless Jehovah God himself reveals it. Will he do so? His own Word says, Yes! Through his prophet Amos, Jehovah has promised: “For the Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7) Do not guess! And do not be unprepared! Whatever the future holds, it can work to your good if you read the Bible regularly, assisted by The Watchtower. Send today. One year, $1. Write now and receive free three timely booklets on Bible subjects. While we were not stating it for sure to the public, internally we all knew what it means that Jehovah is revealing his confidential matter to his servants the prophets. We don't have to guess. We don't have to be unprepared. This is the same idea in Sinutko's talk, saying that "we don't have to guess." ( He said: "Well, we don't have to guess what the year 1975 means if we read the Watchtower. And don't wait 'till 1975. The door is going to be shut before then.")
Compare the 1970 announcement to the same type of announcement just 2 years earlier:
*** w68 4/15 p. 256 Announcements ***
WHAT DOES YOUR FUTURE HOLD? What will the future bring you? Will it bring you peace of mind and security? Will it bring you faith and favor with God? It can! Regular reading of the Bible and following its teachings closely will bring you this and more. To ensure your full appreciation and understanding of what you read you need The Watchtower also. Study it with your Bible and receive the greatest benefit from what lies ahead. Send at once and receive three timely booklets on Bible subjects. One year, $1. This type of ramping up of the rhetoric was common. There are several more examples.
I'll stop here for now, so this doesn't become impossibly long.

I don't say mine is better.

I thought it would be a good idea to look into the ways in which we defend ourselves against the claims about 1975, and the way in which we answer questions about it. As a good example I will start with the way in which a person answered a 1975 challenge on YAHOO ANSWERS. The person signed their name as BAR-ANERGES. I'll assume the person is male. He is evidently not a member of this forum, and may no longer be alive, for all I know. But if anyone knows him, or his whereabouts, I hope he gets a chance to respond himself.
I'll just make some short comments to state my own opinion of what he said. I'll mark his words in a different color, like red.
It is an absolute lie to claim that the Witnesses said that Armageddon would come in 1975. He's right that it is incorrect to claim that "the Witnesses said that Armageddon would come in 1975." For a couple of reasons.
The most important reason is that this supposed claim is a kind of "straw man" that is worded in such a way that it diverts attention from the main point. It's true that no Witnesses should have been saying that Armageddon would come in 1975, in the sense that it must definitely come in 1975. The real question should be whether the claim is true that Jehovah's Witnesses promoted the idea that the Bible had marked the year 1975 in such a way that we could confidently claim that Armageddon should be expected within just a few years, or even just a few months, from the year 1975. Did Jehovah's Witnesses make use of this particular time period that focused on the year 1975 to justify the claim that people should decide quickly to convert and join the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses for safety from imminent destruction at Armageddon? Also, the term "the Witnesses" can refer to a wide range of people and opinions. If we accept that the views of the Witnesses are represented in Watchtower publications, then we also have to accept that not everything said about 1975 was completely consistent. If we accept that the views of the Witnesses are represented by the Watchtower's traveling representatives (circuit overseers, district overseers, branch representatives, Watch Tower Society directors, Governing Body, etc.) then again we have to accept that not everything said about 1975 was completely consistent. Anna has already pointed out that Charles Sinutko's infamous talk is not even consistent within itself.  Here is an article from *1974* that I carry around with me which shows what mature Witnesses knew and were saying: This statement should raise a red flag immediately. We already know that not everything that was said or written was consistent. So we should be immediately wary of making use of one specific statement to generalize what "mature Witnesses knew and were saying." Also, if we look carefully at all the statements in the Watchtower publications from 1966 to 1975 we can see that by October 1974 the trend of the statements about 1975 had already begun to be more cautious. The most direct statements were made from 1968 to 1973. This is a typical pattern with predictions. It happens in corporations, political and economic analysis, and religion:
The initial idea is floated, often with a bit of caution. Then someone is sure enough to begin championing the prediction and begins to stake their reputation on it. Then as confidence builds, those statements become more and more direct and less careful. Then as the time approaches and the kinds of surrounding expectations that might have validated the prediction aren't there yet, real caution kicks in, and if necessary, some backtracking begins. After the failure is obvious, we can expect blame and finger-pointing. Statements about the time period dating back to 1956 were in stage #1. Statements in 1966 were already in stage #2. Dozens of district overseers and circuit overseers along with statements by the service department until 1973 were in stage #3. F.W.Franz himself appeared to remain in stage #3 until 1975, but he also had vacillated into stage #4 at times during the 1974-1975 period. The 1974 summer assemblies, and the 1974 Watchtower quoted here, were in stage #4. Stage #5 had already begun at Bethel as early as late 1975 and early 1976, even though the initial definition of the time period was not about what would happen in 1975, but what would happen in the short number of years or months following 1975.
"The publications of Jehovah's Witnesses have shown that, according to Bible chronology, it appears that 6,000 years of man's existence will be completed in the mid-1970's. But these publications HAVE NEVER SAID THAT THE WORLD'S END WOULD COME THEN. Nevertheless, there has been considerable individual speculation on the matter. So the assembly presentation "Why We Have Not Been Told ‘That Day and Hour'" was very timely. It emphasized that we do not know the exact time when God will bring the end."--w74 10/15 p. 635 "It appears" that 6,000 years of man's existence will be completed in the mid-1970's." Note the backtracking (stage #4). Note even some "finger-pointing" (stage#5) in blaming considerable "individual speculation." The 1966 book (see first post in this topic) said "Six thousand years since man's creation will end in 1975." It did not say "it appears." Now, the new Watchtower didn't even want to use the term "1975" but changed it to "mid-1970's." Previously the question had been "What will the 1970's bring?" But this brings up an important caveat about stage#3 and stage#4 above. As Witnesses, we had an internal policy and external policy. So even while we could expect the more "reckless" stage#3 statements in our own special meetings from traveling overseers, circuit assemblies, and service meetings -- we could expect more careful stage#4 statements when we addressed the public in Sunday public addresses at the same assemblies or district conventions. In preaching, we were careful in such a way that we could even use language that meant stage#4 to the public while we were simultaneously able to treat it as less careful stage#3 speech. Here's a subtle example from a 1970 Watchtower:
*** w70 4/15 p. 256 Announcements ***
WHAT WILL THE 1970’S BRING? Many believe that the 1970’s will see drastic changes in man’s affairs, some hoping for the better, others fearing the worst. What is your view? Whether good or bad, no man knows for sure unless Jehovah God himself reveals it. Will he do so? His own Word says, Yes! Through his prophet Amos, Jehovah has promised: “For the Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7) Do not guess! And do not be unprepared! Whatever the future holds, it can work to your good if you read the Bible regularly, assisted by The Watchtower. Send today. One year, $1. Write now and receive free three timely booklets on Bible subjects. While we were not stating it for sure to the public, internally we all knew what it means that Jehovah is revealing his confidential matter to his servants the prophets. We don't have to guess. We don't have to be unprepared. This is the same idea in Sinutko's talk, saying that "we don't have to guess." ( He said: "Well, we don't have to guess what the year 1975 means if we read the Watchtower. And don't wait 'till 1975. The door is going to be shut before then.")
Compare the 1970 announcement to the same type of announcement just 2 years earlier:
*** w68 4/15 p. 256 Announcements ***
WHAT DOES YOUR FUTURE HOLD? What will the future bring you? Will it bring you peace of mind and security? Will it bring you faith and favor with God? It can! Regular reading of the Bible and following its teachings closely will bring you this and more. To ensure your full appreciation and understanding of what you read you need The Watchtower also. Study it with your Bible and receive the greatest benefit from what lies ahead. Send at once and receive three timely booklets on Bible subjects. One year, $1. This type of ramping up of the rhetoric was common. There are several more examples.
I'll stop here for now, so this doesn't become impossibly long.

I believe it's already been calculated, and refers to a time that the Bible has already clarified. And if I'm wrong, which is both possible and likely -- me being human and all -- then it can refer to a time period that will be recognized when it happens. Nothing to calculate from it, and no chronology necessary.
Nowhere does the Bible say we have to calculate any of this. There was no mistake. In fact, if we read both Daniel and Revelation carefully we can see why there is nothing for us to calculate. But this, at this point, is just an interpretation which is not necessary to defend here. What I'm stating is just an opinion. I can try to defend it elsewhere under a topic about Daniel and Revelation.
I doubt that any JWs really wholeheartedly believe what is currently taught about these time periods, otherwise we would be interested in what exactly was said in those books and assemblies. As it is, we are typically ashamed of the actual contents of those books and assembly speeches, and are forced to only pick and choose sentences out of context. If we really believed that Jesus Christ saw something in the content of those particular assemblies, we would be clamoring to look at whatever Jesus looked at to see if we could better understand the "mind of Christ." Instead, we are satisfied with the idea that, even if most of what was said in the key speeches of those assemblies was false doctrine, or even false prophecies, Jesus still saw their heart condition and was able to ignore the specific things they were saying and focus on the fact that we had been promoting a fairly unique set of core doctrines that were important and true. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the core doctrines that had been true both before and after these assemblies and publications of the time. But our core doctrines were not relevant to the reasons we identify these specific periods in history.
Sorry to skip much of your own presentation about the need to calculate other points of reference. I don't see the need to calculate any of these time periods in advance, or be overly concerned over what they might have meant in the past. I keep commenting on my own view of these periods and then erasing it. I'll be happy to do this under another topic, however.

I believe it's already been calculated, and refers to a time that the Bible has already clarified. And if I'm wrong, which is both possible and likely -- me being human and all -- then it can refer to a time period that will be recognized when it happens. Nothing to calculate from it, and no chronology necessary.
Nowhere does the Bible say we have to calculate any of this. There was no mistake. In fact, if we read both Daniel and Revelation carefully we can see why there is nothing for us to calculate. But this, at this point, is just an interpretation which is not necessary to defend here. What I'm stating is just an opinion. I can try to defend it elsewhere under a topic about Daniel and Revelation.
I doubt that any JWs really wholeheartedly believe what is currently taught about these time periods, otherwise we would be interested in what exactly was said in those books and assemblies. As it is, we are typically ashamed of the actual contents of those books and assembly speeches, and are forced to only pick and choose sentences out of context. If we really believed that Jesus Christ saw something in the content of those particular assemblies, we would be clamoring to look at whatever Jesus looked at to see if we could better understand the "mind of Christ." Instead, we are satisfied with the idea that, even if most of what was said in the key speeches of those assemblies was false doctrine, or even false prophecies, Jesus still saw their heart condition and was able to ignore the specific things they were saying and focus on the fact that we had been promoting a fairly unique set of core doctrines that were important and true. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the core doctrines that had been true both before and after these assemblies and publications of the time. But our core doctrines were not relevant to the reasons we identify these specific periods in history.
Sorry to skip much of your own presentation about the need to calculate other points of reference. I don't see the need to calculate any of these time periods in advance, or be overly concerned over what they might have meant in the past. I keep commenting on my own view of these periods and then erasing it. I'll be happy to do this under another topic, however.

Hey AnonymousBrother. Great to see you back!!! And hopefully coming back to the States will be a good move, too. I've heard you tell of your retirement planning talk in the past. Although you are right about the math supporting it, there are congregations where such talk will not be so welcome, of course. I imagine you raised a few eyebrows when you first talked about "100 years" more in this old system of things. That's going to be seen as "apostate" talk in some circles.
But even this idea that the math can support "100 years" potentially produces exactly the problem we had in 1975. We all acknowledge that the end can come at any time, that's a given. But the "overlapping generation" math, even when using maximum ages of 120, and an "anointing" acknowledged as early as age 15, doesn't extend forever. (Could stretch to 2124.) But what happens if you were asked to give that same talk 50 years from now? The math would only support a maximum that's closer to 50 years. And what happens 90 years from now? The math would only support a number closer to 10 more years. That's the same thing that started in 1966, when the system was expected to go on for only 10 to 15 more years.
Brother Splane once laughed about persons who might be sitting at the JW Broadcasting desk years down the road after he's gone, so I know he's thought of the possibility. According to the "Watchtower," as I'm sure you already know, Brother Russell started to lose faith in 1914 near the end of 1913 and early in the year 1914, and he also began speculating about how people might look back and laugh "100 years from now" on what he had been predicting. 
On the Long Island Rail Road a few years ago, I spoke to a "Harold Camping" guy who, along with his wife, had quit their jobs because it was May 20, and only ONE day before their BIG day. I told him about our religion and 1874, 1878, 1881, 1914, and 1925 and 1975, and how you have to consider what you will do if the end doesn't come as expected. I asked if he had thought about the kind of counseling members of his faith might need on May 22 if it doesn't happen. He spoke to me about how this new date was not wrong, and it would show a grave lack of faith to be considering the possibility that it wouldn't happen. I told him about Mt 24:36; Acts 1:7, and 1Th 5:1, and that Harold Camping was wrong about his "end date" on a previous occasion, and this man was completely prepared to handle those objections. He had a whole CD of information he was giving out that explained May 21, 2011 and had a good explanation for what went wrong on a previous prediction. I gave him my number and told him I'd be happy to talk to him on May 22.
At least Russell had been able to imagine people laughing at him 100 years down the road (2014). And many brothers that I knew were not taking 1975 very seriously either. This included my father, who even got in trouble for kind of letting that slip in a circuit assembly talk. Although my mother was a great believer in 1975, my father had a serious talk with me about 1975, confiding some of his objections about the fact that I was quitting school early to begin regular pioneering. He was of the opinion that we can believe it and be excited about it, but that it could be an embarrassment and reflect badly on Jehovah and his organization if we didn't count the cost, and consider all the possibilities before making a decision that we might "kick ourselves" for, looking back. 

Yes. I've seen some of your proposed math. But I am a strong believer in Paul's words that we need nothing to be written to us about the times and seasons (1Th 5:1). This must mean that there is nothing left to calculate. The very last prophecy that hung on a time calculation was the destruction of Jerusalem, when Jesus said it would happen that armies would encamp around Jerusalem in that same generation, before the people who heard him had died out. And it happened about 34 years after Jesus predicted it to come upon that generation. After that destruction the sign had occurred and the stage was set for Jesus' parousia to appear at any time, but that it would be a bright and shining parousia like lightning, Jesus says. He also says that the parousia will come as a surprise, as unpredictable and unannounced as a thief in the night. People would be going about their business, marrying and being given in marriage, and yet that day of the parousia would come upon them as surprising as the day when the flood came in Noah's time, or when the fire came in Lot's time. Right up until the time when the parousia appears, people will be saying "where is this promised parousia of his?" while most people are still going about their business much the same way as they have since the beginning of time. 

Hey AnonymousBrother. Great to see you back!!! And hopefully coming back to the States will be a good move, too. I've heard you tell of your retirement planning talk in the past. Although you are right about the math supporting it, there are congregations where such talk will not be so welcome, of course. I imagine you raised a few eyebrows when you first talked about "100 years" more in this old system of things. That's going to be seen as "apostate" talk in some circles.
But even this idea that the math can support "100 years" potentially produces exactly the problem we had in 1975. We all acknowledge that the end can come at any time, that's a given. But the "overlapping generation" math, even when using maximum ages of 120, and an "anointing" acknowledged as early as age 15, doesn't extend forever. (Could stretch to 2124.) But what happens if you were asked to give that same talk 50 years from now? The math would only support a maximum that's closer to 50 years. And what happens 90 years from now? The math would only support a number closer to 10 more years. That's the same thing that started in 1966, when the system was expected to go on for only 10 to 15 more years.
Brother Splane once laughed about persons who might be sitting at the JW Broadcasting desk years down the road after he's gone, so I know he's thought of the possibility. According to the "Watchtower," as I'm sure you already know, Brother Russell started to lose faith in 1914 near the end of 1913 and early in the year 1914, and he also began speculating about how people might look back and laugh "100 years from now" on what he had been predicting. 
On the Long Island Rail Road a few years ago, I spoke to a "Harold Camping" guy who, along with his wife, had quit their jobs because it was May 20, and only ONE day before their BIG day. I told him about our religion and 1874, 1878, 1881, 1914, and 1925 and 1975, and how you have to consider what you will do if the end doesn't come as expected. I asked if he had thought about the kind of counseling members of his faith might need on May 22 if it doesn't happen. He spoke to me about how this new date was not wrong, and it would show a grave lack of faith to be considering the possibility that it wouldn't happen. I told him about Mt 24:36; Acts 1:7, and 1Th 5:1, and that Harold Camping was wrong about his "end date" on a previous occasion, and this man was completely prepared to handle those objections. He had a whole CD of information he was giving out that explained May 21, 2011 and had a good explanation for what went wrong on a previous prediction. I gave him my number and told him I'd be happy to talk to him on May 22.
At least Russell had been able to imagine people laughing at him 100 years down the road (2014). And many brothers that I knew were not taking 1975 very seriously either. This included my father, who even got in trouble for kind of letting that slip in a circuit assembly talk. Although my mother was a great believer in 1975, my father had a serious talk with me about 1975, confiding some of his objections about the fact that I was quitting school early to begin regular pioneering. He was of the opinion that we can believe it and be excited about it, but that it could be an embarrassment and reflect badly on Jehovah and his organization if we didn't count the cost, and consider all the possibilities before making a decision that we might "kick ourselves" for, looking back. 

? ? ? .•*¨`*•..¸???¸.•*¨`*•. ? ? ?

Don't really know first hand what F Franz believed, but I remember the talk he gave about it post '75 because I was sitting in the front row. (No notes I remember...long talk). I am sure he, like a lot of others, certainly hoped for a 1975 event.
The funny thing is there are those who were swayed about 1975 and there are those who were not. Yet both camps seem to have a problem accepting the other now. Those who were swayed seem to be a bit "once bitten, twice shy" and accuse the others of "cognitive dissonance". Those who were not swayed get a bit self-righteous and say "well I didn't fall for it, can't see how anyone else did! But then, you know what these Americans can be like....". And then there's those that weren't even there......................You know what?  "there's now't so queer as folk".
I had a shepherding call in 1973 from a couple of elders, one of whom proudly told me he had cancelled his insurances (life or endowment or something) because he was so sure the imminent end made them not worth paying for. I actually could just about afford my fare to work at the time, so his "exhortation" to simplicity rather fell on deaf ears as I actually had nothing at all left at the end of my working week as my wage at the time only covered my living expenses.
Soon after, a prominent elder from Bethel (who took my book study group) said that he was not a member of the "1975 Armageddon school of thought" because it was actually not a scriptural teaching. I had great respect for that brother at the time and was very glad to hear him say this as I was not comfortable with the view that some, (and it was only some), had over this matter. They were usually a particular type of brother (in my opinion), greeting each other at the kingdom hall, always slightly over-excitedly saying embarrassing things like "it won't be long now" as they shook my hand vigorously, often holding it with two of theirs. 
Another characteristic of some of these ones I remember was their obsessive recording of assembly talks on those little cassette recorders that many had in those days. They were always out of their seats at assemblies, fiddling with safety pins,  as they spiked the speaker wires, fighting for the plum, accessible spots on the stadium ledges, so they could get in and out in time to change tapes that often did not last long enough to get a whole talk on one side. (60 minute tapes used to get wound round the mechanism some how). Then there was the batteries running out, mid-talk! One brother, in haste, actually dropped his recorder down the side of the stadium into a narrow void where the seating structure was. He was so upset over this that it was like his Armageddon had come there and then! These brothers also indulged in swapping these recordings, often getting prized tapes of American COs giving talks at assemblies, and really stirring up the pot in a much more direct and vigorous manner than we were used to. (I think those Americans probably were responsible for the hysteria you know, apart from "Armageddon Ernie" of course).
Ah well, those were the days..."Things ain't what they used to be, and never were". (Will Rogers?)
 

Lol!
I've always liked what one father said to his daughter (quoted in one WT): "plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your lifetime, but live your life as if it will come tomorrow"
I apologise to those who have heard me say this numerous times before.

Not here. In Asia things are more dedicated. How the "next phase" is calculated is not that important. They can mostly talk about it, but pay less attention to the details than the result: "Wait. Not time yet."
I'm moving back to the US in a couple of weeks (been in Asia 24 years). But even then, the congregation I will be attending aren't that fixated on "how" just "when" (sorta speak).

Thanks. But I was referring to the irony of responding to a point about "honesty" by creating additional, false, contradictory accounts -- alter-egos or "personalities," as it were. However, that is almost a perfect lead-in to what many of us saw happening not long after the 1970's came and went without the expectations fulfilled. I haven't studied the psychology of these things, so I can't speak to egos and ids as others might be able to. But I can agree that ego in the more common meaning of the word would help explain why so many people didn't want to admit having been wrong -- and were more than happy to adjust to the belief that this whole thing didn't really happen the way it did, and even if it did, it was only because a few brothers and sisters "ran ahead" of Jehovah's organization.
Even people who lived through the time period, as I did my along with own large family, including an extended family of Witnesses, were very quick to dismiss the idea that anything was ever said in the way it was actually said. A Bible study could actually read directly from photocopies of 10 to 20 year old publications to my mother and father, and they would deny that these were actual photocopies. My grandmother, who collected almost every special talk from every traveling visitor and Society (branch) representative, had all the old talks from the period, and even a circuit assembly from 1970, I think, that was just full of amazingly unscriptural talks about what the 1970's were sure to bring. My father was usually the "Sound Servant" (speakers, mics, mixers, amps, wires) at any assembly we attended, whether circuit, district, international, special meeting, and we often attended at least 6 assemblies a year due to this fact.  He kept a master copy of most of the assemblies and visits to the Norco Assembly Hall (the first one) and I would sometimes hear a talk again when he made copies of some of these talks on request. I heard the talks from this period more times than I care to remember.
Still, I found this time period to be exciting and entertaining. And I still think that the expectations--even though they were not fulfilled at the time many of us expected--were sill faith-strengthening rather than devastating, as they were to some. I thought they made us imagine more clearly what our lives could be like in just a few years, and it made us imagine what they might be like if things didn't happen as many expected. I never had a problem with this "exercise" of our faith. It was like a kind of mental "fire drill." I think it helped many to clarify their relationship with Jehovah. I was baptized in 1967, when the 1966 book that started this post was required reading for baptism. and began to auxiliary pioneer with all the magazines and books related to this issue. I was scheduled to graduate in 1975 but quit high school to pioneer full-time in 1973, not even 16 years old. This was recommended and encouraged by elders, circuit overseers and district overseers. My father, an electrical engineer, put some strict conditions on me if I were to leave school, including the amount of money I had to earn and split with the family per month, how soon I had to be able to support myself and leave the house (when I was 18 years old). So my life was defined around 1975 in such a way that I was not as apt to forget what happened and why.
But many persons who lived through the same period are now quick to deny that any of what happened actually happened, including things that happened to them personally. This is a disconcerting observation.