Well you want some proof do you and you make the false claim that I simply restate WT arguments repeatedly, that I add nothing new to this debate on chronology. You claim that I deny things because these do not fit into my flawed interpreatations. All that you have said in respect to the seventy years and chronology is simply borrowed from Jonsson's GTR, the only original point you have contributed is a spreadsheet chart of the regnal data which is hardly 'original'.
I had established my view of the issue based purely on the scriptures and information from the British Museum before I had even heard of Jonsson, so to say I borrowed it from him is simply a lie. Incidentally, I have updated my spreadsheet to also indicate the chronologies of Thiele, Albright, and the Watchtower Society side by side.
Let us then turn our attention to Jeremiah 25:12 which you interpret the phrase "I shall to account against the king of Babylon" as only applying to the Fall or conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE. You admit to no other view or interpretation. Did you check or research the commentaries on this verse to examine what scholars say about this verse? For starters this statement does not give an event in an immediate sense but provides the only time element that this would only commence after the seventy years are fulfilled. Was the seventy years fulfilled in 539? You would say that it was but you offer no proof for this fact because the Jews right up until 539 were still exiled in Babylon, they were still in servitude and the land rermained desolated all necessary conditions of Jeremiah's prophecy. If the seventy years ended in 539 then when did they commence? Was it 609 if we understand that seventy years was an exact number, but that could not be the case because the Judah was not serving Babylon and therefore the seventy years had not then commenced. So your 539 theory simply fails.
I have never said that calling Babylon and its king to account only applies to Babylon's fall in 539, I have consistently said that Babylon's king was called to account at that time (i.e., "God has numbered the days of your kingdom", "you have been weighed in the balances", "your kingdom has been divided..."), and that Babylon's judgement began at that time. I have many times stated that the judgement may have continued for any period of time following that, but that it could not begin some time after Babylon's king was killed. This view is in harmony with Jeremiah's clear words that nations would serve Babylon, and after seventy years, Babylon would be judged. As has been previously stated many times, none of the original-text words used to describe Jerusalem's devastations require complete depopulation, nor that the exile had to last exactly seventy years. (Even the Society acknowledges in the Insight book that there is no evidence that exactly seventy years of Sabbaths had not been observed or had to be repaid.) Additionally, the bible implies that there were still people left in Judea after what you pretend was 607, and there is no evidence that it was completely uninhabited for the entire 70 years. Given that there is no point beyond 539 at which the 70 years could end, then yes, it seems reasonable that, if the seventy years is taken as an exact, unrounded, number, than they began in 609. Co-incidentally, this is when Babylon destroyed the last vestiges of the Assyrian world power. Judah did not need to be exiled to Babylon to be considered to be serving Babylon at that time, as it was not the definining aspect of Babylon's seventy years, as clearly indicated in the account at Jeremiah 25. (It is possible that a period of approximately 70 years is intended, though I do not subscribe to that view.) In any case, the entirety of the 70 years did not need to refer to Judah, just as they did not fully apply to the 70 years for which Tyre would be "forgotten".
Verse 12 states that calling to account was not an immediate event but a gradual proces that involved not just a king but Babylon and the land and that altogether Babylon would become a desolation which clearly did not occur in 539. So, this verse as recognized by leading scholars and commentators including the 'celebrated' is a prophecy of the future whence Babylon as with the other foreign nations would cease to exist which began as a processional event after the release of the captives which ended the seventy years in 537.
Again with the ignoring what I've said. To reiterate, I have never suggested that the judgement did not continue as a gradual process of Babylon's decline following the beginning of the judgement starting with the death of its king in 539. (You say "as with the other foreign nations would cease to exist" even though some of those nations are still with us today - of course in a few billion billion years the sun could go supernova, which would put an end to those nations will indeed cease to exist at some point.) The bible does not say that depopulation was required for the entirety of the period in order to pay of the sabbaths. Nor does it say that they ended only once the captives had returned. The scriptures do say that the king of Babylon would be judged when the seventy years ended, that during the seventy years, Sabbaths were repaid, and that after the judgement of Babylon's king, God would turn his attention to his people. The only scripture that might suggest that the entire 70 years were specifically of exile is 2 Chronicles 36:17-21, and a comparison of it with the other scriptures that mention the 70 years indicates that it was "until the royalty of Persia began to reign" that marked the end of the period, not the actual return of the captives. You have nothing to support your interpretation.
Further, Jeremiah uses this phrase similarly as an expression of eventual and progressive judgement not immediate judgement in Jeremiah 36:31. this expression can have an immediate beginning but its focus is over a longer period of time.
Yes, Jeremiah's expression had "an immediate beginning" when Babylon's king was called to account, though "its focus is over a longer period of time" for the gradual decline of Babylon itself, which is exactly what I have said the whole time. Try to keep up.