Pudgy

Actually, I have never seen a person who worked so hard to prove someone wrong, but at the same time, inadvertently confirm that what I have been presenting here is relatively accurate -- so far. Given time, and given the amount of effort you evidently put into finding fault, I assume that someday you really will find something that I am presenting incorrectly, and then I'll be able to learn something useful from it and make the necessary correction. In the past, under other names, you've presented some resource material I hadn't seen before, and I found it very interesting. I'm a patient person. Happy to keep waiting for something useful again. Even if it means putting with all those lies and nonsense from you about banning persons. I'm also happy for the entertainment value, and revelations about human nature, etc. 
Even if you don't come through again. I have no interest in banning you, nor do I even know for sure if I have that authority as an assigned moderator. If I do have that ability, I have never used it.

Alphonse:
Having downvoted what I consider statements of irrefutable fact … please feel free to correct any and/or all points.
Otherwise, you prove yourself a Troglodyte.

I would never suggest blocking or banning The Vicar of Warwick, Wally McNasty and his doppelgänger minion troupe of whack-a-mole up and downvoting mute sock puppets.
It could only be better with recorded squirrel noises and rubber bulb bicycle horns in both hands.

Can I just check if both of you have blocked me or just this identity? You really should write a book someday. Wow. I’m speechless. 

@Miracle Pete
Thank you for participating. I've now added both you and Pudgy to my "Ignore" list, haha!

It's rather amusing to observe how individuals such as Pudgy, Tom, JWI, Many Miles, Xero, or members of the closed club are compelled to support apostates here through alternate accounts. Quite humorous, indeed! In this case, it appears you are Pudgy's or Many miles, maybe even Tom's sock puppet as they like to refer to it, and since you have posted it, PROVE IT, don't just make accusations, lol!
Please refrain from engaging in verbose rhetoric, discussing login, timing, or infringing upon others' privacy rights, as done by moderators like JWI as proof. Let's avoid any further nonsense if that intent is going to be applied.
This type of behavior typically emerges right before they expel someone, primarily because they cannot tolerate being proven wrong. They resorted to using sock puppets for hurling insults, and carrying out their malicious deeds. Consequently, they deceive people by claiming that no one has been banned due to their actions, which is not only false but also an outright lie.
So, I'll just block you right now, you can speak with your other self at will.

Yeah … he also has other logins to upvote himself and other logins to downvote others …
…. he thinks no one notices ….

When I was a young man and the “end of the conveyor belt” was over the horizon I was intensely interested in such things. 
Now I am only interested in provable reality, as I can see the end of the “conveyor belt”, and everybody’s predictions have been 100% wrong, 100% of the time.
So ….. what’s the point?
I am sitting in my car outside WalMart, and I can look around and see the Great Tribulation has NOT OCCURRED.
I can look around and see Armageddon has  NOT OCCURRED.
I can look at the bag of pills on the front seat and see that God’s Kingdom ruling has NOT OCCURRED.
A thousand iterative calculations “PROVING” IT DID, and all the hopes and dreams, and wishful theories are wrong.
When it happens you will know it.
Really!
Really

The top part is just the Babylonian kings based on the tens of thousands of contract/business tablets, with no concern as to their BCE dates. Just trying to match up the Biblical events underneath. Then the two unnecessary rows at the bottom offer the standard BCE timeline in green, and the WTS timeline in blue. 
Note that the WTS timeline agrees with the green standard timeline from 556 onward, but differs from 580 on back. The WTS publications also agree with 580 being part of Evil-Merodach's reign, so I have included that date. But the orange dates refer to the entire reign of Neriglissar which is the only range of standard dates which the WTS leaves open to a 24-year period rather than a 4-year period. The assumption is that there may be one or more unknown kings who reigned for 20 extra years during this period. 
Like I say, these BCE dates aren't necessary for understanding the Bible. The Bible doesn't use them. I would not stake my life on either one of the timelines. The only thing I would push back on is the false claim that the blue (WTS) have more or better evidence behind them than the green (standard).  

Yeah … he also has other logins to upvote himself and other logins to downvote others …
…. he thinks no one notices ….

That's another astute observation. Even if a stone tablet or inscription had declared that it was precisely the 14th year of Nabonidus when Nineveh fell, and another tablet gave astronomical positions that could only be dated to the 612 BCE, this isn't enough. Who's to say that the those lunar or planetary positions which definitely happened in 612 BCE were actually recorded in the 14th year of Nabonidus, just because they say they were? The celestial positions would still definitely be for 612 BCE, but attributing them to "NABONIDUS 14" could still have resulted from a scribal error (or a conspiracy of scribal errors). And just because the ancient record indicates that Nineveh was actually destroyed in the 14th year of Nabonidus, who's to say that this wasn't wishful thinking on the part of the person recording the events. Perhaps the bulk of Nineveh had been destroyed earlier, perhaps it was an ongoing process and someone just arbitrarily assigned it to a specific year of Nabonidus to make it appear more successful, even though the persons he was after got away to another city. Or who knows whether there was some criteria by which a city was considered captured or destroyed under Assyrian protocol that was different under Babylonian or Judean? 
However when the Bible speaks of Jerusalem's temple being destroyed in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, we probably shouldn't doubt that it was the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 
But there is an obvious solution to the problem. Just pick any particular date you would like and work from there. See what evidence there is to attach a Julian/Gregorian date to it (B.C.E./B.C.) and see if it fits the rest of the evidence. 
It's even simpler because the Watchtower publications already agree with all of the standard dates that I have marked in green below throughout the Neo-Babylonian period. Since these are the only two competing timelines that we are worried about, why not just discuss them either as relative dates, the way the Bible does, or offer both BCE dates in the timeline. That's what I have done below when I was trying to work out the relative dates starting from 1 Kings and Jeremiah. I couldn't care less what the actual BCE dates are, so I'll just put them both there as reference. I'll put it in the next post.
 

I’m fairly new here but this is the same person talking to themselves isn’t it? Hilarious. Very very weird but hilarious. 

The Watchtower Society also adamantly asserts that there is no mention of BC/BCE in the Bible. [Insight Vol.1: "Chronology"; w69w68 8/15 p. 489; etc.]  It's exactly what my point has been about both 607 BCE and 587 BCE. And it's exactly right. Because the Bible does not refute 607, just as it does not refute 587. Neither does the Bible support either date.
The 607 BCE date can only be derived from a foundation of astronomy. 
The 587 BCE date can only be derived from a foundation of astronomy.
BCE/BC dates are only measured in terms of the Gregorian or Julian calendars. Note:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 489-490 pars. 8-15 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates ***
If events recorded in the Bible were dated according to the Julian or other preceding calendars, it would be a rather simple matter to convert such dates to the Gregorian calendar. But not so.
. . . Please note, the Nabonidus Chronicle gives precise details as to the time when these events took place. This, in turn, enables modern scholars, with their knowledge of astronomy, to translate these dates into terms of the Julian or Gregorian calendars. 
 

It is good to note that bans also have their counter effects. There is no guarantee that bans are successful, that is what experience tells us. People drink alcohol and drive motor vehicles relentlessly even though prohibitions are clearly posted and penalties are enforced.
Ideologically oriented and convinced people, in this case with religious beliefs, will resist the prohibitions of their religious freedom. JWs are not an only example of that. And other people, because of different beliefs, are ready to endure contempt and various prohibitions of society.
One question is always asked, is it worth suffering? When GB bans the wearing of beards for men or trousers for women, we wonder if the ban is worth enduring? JWs have proven it's worth. Because they also received liberation from those prohibitions. lol
But, Is it useful for a Russian brother to wear a beard? And Orthodox priests in Russia also wear beards, so maybe the end of the ban on wearing beards will not significantly affect JW men in Russia, because they could be mistaken for members of the "false religion".
GB abandons some of its bans, and there are various motives and reasons behind this. The fact that something is true, just, moral and pleasing to God plays the least role in all of this. It is about pragmatic reasons and the issue of money and material possessions. Also damage control, primarily due to the specific policy of running a massive international corporation, which is a religiously-ideologically colored hierarhical administration.
Each ideology is interwoven with its own extremisms, which are accepted by members within that ideology. WTJWorg and GB keep proving their own extremism which they project to their followers. And some JWs rebel within themselves against it, but then they become "apostates" and are expelled from the "society" because they are under "ban". Some leave and others stay despite the bans. Some remain in WTJWorg and balance the ban with their freedom.
So, as written in the article, bans are of limited effect. But in the meantime, you have to endure. Is it possible? Is it necessary?

Why banning the Jehovah’s Witnesses won’t work for Russia
BY EMILY B. BARAN APRIL 20TH 2017 The Supreme Court of Russia has a decision to make this week about whether to label the Jehovah’s Witnesses an extremist organization and liquidate its assets. This act would transform the religious community into a criminal network, and make individual Witnesses vulnerable to arrest simply for speaking about their faith with others. While the court case has attracted recent media attention, this move is the culmination of two decades of increasing state hostility to Witnesses. In the late 1990s, Moscow took the Witnesses to court to deny them legal standing in the city limits. After several years of court hearings, the city banned the organization. In more recent years, anti-extremism laws drafted in the wake of domestic terrorism have been turned against Witness magazines and books. Currently, over eighty publications have been placed on the federal list of extremist materials. Even their website is now illegal. So is My Book of Bible Stories, an illustrated book for children, listed alongside publications by terrorist organizations.
If the state criminalizes the Witnesses, it will represent a major deterioration in religious toleration in post-Soviet Russia. It will also put Russia at odds with the European Court of Human Rights, which has repeatedly ruled in favor of the Witnesses in the past two decades. It may make other minority faiths vulnerable to similar legal challenges. In the 1990s, scholars spoke of a newly opened religious marketplace, in which post-Soviet citizens, freed from the constraints of state-enforced atheism, shopped around among the faith traditions. It is fair to say that these days, this marketplace has fewer customers, fewer stalls, and more regulations.
If history is any guide, Russia will find it nearly impossible to eliminate Jehovah’s Witnesses. Soviet dissident author Vladimir Bukovsky once admiringly wrote of the Witnesses’ legendary persistence under ban. When the Soviet Union barred religious literature from crossing its borders, Witnesses set up underground bunkers to print illegal magazines for their congregations. When Soviet officials prohibited Witnesses from hosting religious services, they gathered in small groups in their apartments, often in the middle of the night. Sometimes they snuck away to nearby woods or out onto the vast steppe, where they could meet with less scrutiny. When the state told believers that they could not evangelize their faith to others, Witnesses chatted up their neighbors, coworkers, and friends. When these actions landed them in labor camps, Witnesses sought out converts among their fellow prisoners. Witnesses are certain to revive many of these tactics if placed in similar circumstances in the future.
Moreover, technology makes it far more difficult for Russia to control the religious practices of its citizens. Although the Witnesses’ official website is no longer available in Russia, individual members can easily share religious literature through email or dozens of other social media platforms and apps. While Soviet Witnesses had to write coded reports and hand-deliver them through an underground courier network, Witnesses today can text this information in seconds. Technology will also facilitate meeting times for religious services in private homes.
The Russian government simply does not have the manpower to enforce its own ban. It is hard to imagine that local officials could effectively prevent over 170,000 people across more than 2,000 congregations from gathering together multiple times per week, as Witnesses do worldwide. The case of Taganrog is instructive. Several hundred Witnesses lived there in 2009, when the city declared the organization illegal. A few years later, it convicted sixteen Witnesses for ignoring the ban and continuing to gather their congregations for services. The state spent over a year in investigations and court hearings for sixteen people, a tiny fraction of the total congregation, and then suspended the sentences and fines rather than waste more resources in following through on its punishment guidelines. There are not enough police officers in Russia to monitor the daily activities of each and every Witness, and the Witnesses know it. Under a ban, everyone will face more scrutiny, a few will be dealt more serious consequences, and most will continue practicing their faith regardless.
Russia may nonetheless decide that all of this conflict is worth it. After all, Soviet officials were fairly successful in relegating Witnesses to the margins of society. Few Russians will complain if Witnesses no longer come to knock on their door. After all, even Americans rarely have kind words for religious missionaries at their own doorsteps. In my own research, I have never heard a single Russian, other than a scholar, say anything positive about Witnesses. For the record, my experience with Americans has been similar. On a more basic level, Russian citizens may not even notice the Witnesses’ absence from public life. While the post-Soviet period saw a religious revival for all faiths, far fewer joined the Witnesses than the Russian Orthodox Church. For all their recent growth in membership, the Witnesses remain a tiny minority in a largely secular society.
The vocal determination of Witnesses not to acquiesce to state demands should not cause observers to overlook the very real damage a ban would do to this community. Yes, Witnesses have faced similar challenges before and have dealt with them. For decades, they held their baptisms in local rivers and lakes under cover of night. In the post-Soviet period, new members were finally able to celebrate their baptisms in full view of their fellow believers at public conventions. A long-time Witness who attended one of these events in the early 1990s recalled, “What happiness, what freedom!” A new ban would mean a return to this underground life, to a hushed ceremony in cold waters. This is not what freedom of conscience looks like in modern states.
Emily B. Baran is the author of Dissent on the Margins: How Jehovah’s Witnesses Defied Communism and Lived to Preach About It. Her work explores the shifting contours of dissent and freedom in the Soviet Union and its successor states. She is Assistant Professor of History at Middle Tennessee State University.

Does this apply to a lot of bearded people at the meeting?

CALIBRATION:
Calendars have to be calibrated against something or they “float”.
I have designed complete housing subdivisions and drawn the maps on arbitrary coordinate systems (zero, zero, or 10,000, 5,000 …) which would define each and every lot completely, but when convenient it needed to have those many thousands of coordinates translated and rotated to fit the REAL WORLD. 
Temporal mapping ( commonly known as Calendars …) works the same way
Until you anchor them to something irrefutable ( In this case, astronomical “benchmarks”… ) an epoch calendar can be ANY date in another measurement system.

The main thing to remember in all this discussion is that there are absolutely no BCE dates that can be known without astronomy. NONE.
If you make a claim about ANY date in the BCE range, you have relied upon astronomy as the foundation for that date. That's the foundation we start from even for our famous 607 date (WTS chronology). The 539 date. The 632 date we use for the 14th year of Nabopolassar, and therefore the likely Fall of Nineveh. It's all about astronomy if we include a BCE date.
The gap does not necessarily widen, at least through the late Neo-Assyrian or the entire Neo-Babylonian era, and every era since: Persian, Greek, Roman, etc. This is where the many readings from astronomy come in. There is often a question about what month of the year a king started his reign in, and if reigns count from a fall new year instead of a spring new year, you could be 6 months off. If you don't know whether the few weeks or months before the new year was counted as the "first year" then you might be a year off. But if the method stayed the same from reign to reign you would not continue to widen any gap, and if the method changed back and forth from reign to reign, the mistakes would essentially cancel each other out. 
But every few years, and sometimes year after year for several years in a row, we have astronomy readings that identify every BCE year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, every BCE year of Nabopolassar's reign, every BCE year of Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, and Nabonidus, right up to Cyrus. The reason those dates match exactly to the years of the eras that Ptolemy used was because he, too, checked them against the astronomy.

I wish you a quick and good recovery.

What you believe does not affect what I observe.
It only affects YOUR ability.

I believe Chat GBT is having trouble with the word “covered”. 
Try this: “Draw a black an white New Yorker style cartoon with a man in bib overalls facing a wall, who has just hit his thumb with a hammer and is screaming  special character profanity in a text balloon with a woman behind him dressed in a housedress and apron with her two index fingers touching the ear holes of a stupid looking parrot on a perch”
Alternately, a non-sequiter style cartoon of the Delorean from “Back to the Future” in an abandoned shopping mall parking lot, with Dr. Emmett Brown slamming his hand in the car door, and exclaiming in a text balloon “Great Scott! and random fluctuations at 1.21 gigawatts in the spacetime continuum!!”, with Marty McFly watching in horror.

Me: No, if you remember what you drew in the very first picture. The man should have just hit his finger or thumb with a hammer while trying to hammer a nail in the wall. The woman should be next to the parrot. She should be pointing her left index finger at the parrot's ear, and she should point her right finger at the parrots other ear. But her index fingers should be close enough to be touching the parrot.

Me: 
I like the black and white version better, and the parrot should be back on a perch which should be just like the first picture you drew, but with the pole a bit shorter so that the women is just slightly taller than the perch, and can more easily put her fingers at each side of the parrots head, but touching the parrots head at each side so it appears that she is trying to stop the parrot from hearing

Me: Keep the same picture, but have the woman holding the index finger of each hand at both sides of the parrot's head as if she is trying to cover the parrot's ears to keep the parrot from hearing whatever the man is saying.

I've adjusted the scene according to your instructions. The woman is now holding her index fingers at both sides of the parrot's head, attempting to cover its ears.
Not quite. So I try again: