Erbie, post 32 --
In the same breath that they acknowledge the backwards counting method works, they qualify that admission by saying it only works "if each king followed the other in the same year, without any breaks in between."
And they tried their hardest in this article to cast doubt on the succession of the kings by talking about "discrepancies in the transition of one king to another." For instance, they cited scholar Ronald H. Sack to suggest that there was a problem in the transition between Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar. But the anomalous tablet they cite in footnote 9 actually shows an OVERLAP of some three months rather than a GAP between kings.
We know there were no gaps between kings because we have tens of thousands of dated cuneiform tablets that cover each king of the neo-Babylonian period. We have the 6th century BCE equivalent of the piles of dated records and dated receipts in our 21st century desk drawers, filing cabinets, and purses; for instance, we have legal, administrative, and banking tablets, tablets with receipts for sales of property, purchases of grain, purchases of slaves, etc.
In suggesting that there may be gaps in the transition from one king to the next, the Watchtower is turning its back on its own 1/1/1965 article, "The Rejoicing of the Wicked is Short Lived," in which they give the succession of the neo-Babylonian kings.
If the 1965 WT article is correct, then there are no breaks between the kings.
And if there are no breaks between the kings, then the Nov. 1, 2011 WT admits that 587 BCE is the correct date for the destruction of Jerusalem.