VAT 4956 - Comparison Of The Lunar Three Time Intervals For Years 568/7 BCE and 588/7 BCE

by AnnOMaly 53 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    Now they can say "The Faithful Slave has dealt with this matter, are you saying you know better than them ?"

    Exactly. One JW's (error-ridden) research has now officially become the FDS's Truth. And believe me, if any JW was already familiar with the source of the WT article's research, this line will be used to squash any debate on the matter from within the ranks.

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    COMPARISON USING ALCYONE EPHEMERIS 2.8 (AE)

    568/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 22/23

    Month/Day

    Julian Date

    Interval

    Text

    AE

    Difference

    I.14

    May 6 a.m., 568

    SR-MS

    4°

    2.75°

    1.25°

    II.26

    June 17 a.m., 568

    MR-SR

    23°

    23.25°

    0.25°

    III.1

    June 20 p.m., 568

    SS-MS

    20°

    22.75°

    2.75°

    III.15

    July 5 a.m., 568

    SR-MS

    7.5°

    0.5°

    XI.1

    Feb 12 p.m., 567

    SS-MS

    14.5°

    17°

    2.5°

    XII.1

    Mar 14 p.m., 567

    SS-MS

    25°

    25.75°

    0.75°

    XII.12

    Mar 26 a.m., 567

    SR-MS

    1.5°

    -0.5° !

    Notes:

    ! No measurement of the type specified on the tablet could be taken that day according to this program's simulation. The moon set before the sun rose instead of the other way around. This time, a calculation has been included for all exclamation marked boxes.

    Method:

    1.5° (above horizon) to 0° (horizon) = 1.5° of time

    0° (horizon) to -0.5° (below horizon) = 0.5° of time

    Therefore, the difference between the tablet's figure and AE's computation is, here,

    1.5 + 0.5 = 2°

    Comments:

    AE's range of difference between its results and those of the text is 0.25° to 2.75°. Average difference 1.4°.

    588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = May 2/3 (Furuli's calendar)

    Month/Day

    Julian Date

    Interval

    Text

    AE

    Difference

    I.14

    May 16 a.m., 588

    SR-MS

    4°

    -9.5° !

    13.5°

    II.26

    June 27 a.m., 588

    MR-SR

    23°

    28°

    III.1

    June 301 p.m., 588

    SS-MS

    20°

    5.5°

    14.5°

    III.15

    July 15 a.m., 588

    SR-MS

    7.5°

    -2.5° !

    10°

    XI.1

    Feb 22 p.m., 587

    SS-MS

    14.5°

    9.5°

    XII.1

    Mar 24 p.m., 587

    SS-MS

    25°

    21.25°

    3.75°

    XII.12

    Apr 52 a.m., 587

    SR-MS

    1.5°

    -11.5° !

    13°

    Notes:

    ! No measurement of the type specified on the tablet could be taken that day according to this program's simulations. See note on this above.

    For notes 1 and 2 see notes for the opening post's second table.

    Comments:

    AE's range of difference between its results and those of the text is 3.75° to 14.5°. Average difference 9.25°.

    588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 3/4 (Parker and Dubberstein's tables)

    Month/Day

    Julian Date

    Interval

    Text

    AE

    Difference

    I.14

    Apr 17 a.m., 588

    SR-MS

    4°

    -3.75° !

    7.75°

    II.26

    May 29 a.m., 588

    MR-SR

    23°

    15°

    III.1

    June 1 p.m., 588

    SS-MS

    20°

    13.75°

    6.25°

    III.15

    June 16 a.m., 588

    SR-MS

    7.5°

    4.5°

    XI.1

    Jan 24 p.m., 587

    SS-MS

    14.5°

    16.25°

    1.75°

    XII.1

    Feb 23 p.m., 587

    SS-MS

    25°

    27.25°

    2.25°

    XII.12

    Mar 7 a.m., 587

    SR-MS

    1.5°

    -8.25° !

    9.75°

    Notes:

    ! No measurement of the type specified on the tablet could be taken that day according to this program's simulations. See note on this above.

    Comments:

    AE's range of difference between its results and those of the text is 1.75° to 9.75°. Average difference 5.5°.

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    COMPARISON USING SKY MAP PRO 11.04

    Contributed by another researcher.

    568/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 22/23

    Month/Day

    Julian Date

    Interval

    Text

    Sky Map Pro

    Difference

    I.14

    May 6 a.m., 568

    SR-MS

    4°

    3.82°

    0.18°

    II.26

    June 17 a.m., 568

    MR-SR

    23°

    23°

    III.1

    June 20 p.m., 568

    SS-MS

    20°

    22.90°

    2.9°

    III.15

    July 5 a.m., 568

    SR-MS

    7.5°

    8.31°

    0.81°

    XI.1

    Feb 12 p.m., 567

    SS-MS

    14.5°

    17.26°

    2.76°

    XII.1

    Mar 14 p.m., 567

    SS-MS

    25°

    25.98°

    0.98°

    XII.12

    Mar 26 a.m., 567

    SR-MS

    1.5°

    0.63°

    0.87°

    Comments:

    Sky Map Pro's range of difference between its results and those of the text is 0° to 2.9°. Average difference 1.2°.

    588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = May 2/3 (Furuli's calendar)

    Month/Day

    Julian Date

    Interval

    Text

    Sky Map Pro

    Difference

    I.14

    May 16 a.m., 588

    SR-MS

    4°

    -8.22° !

    12.22°

    II.26

    June 27 a.m., 588

    MR-SR

    23°

    27.74°

    4.74°

    III.1

    June 301 p.m., 588

    SS-MS

    20°

    5.65°

    14.35°

    III.15

    July 15 a.m., 588

    SR-MS

    7.5°

    -1.18° !

    8.68°

    XI.1

    Feb 22 p.m., 587

    SS-MS

    14.5°

    9.81°

    4.69°

    XII.1

    Mar 24 p.m., 587

    SS-MS

    25°

    21.43°

    3.57°

    XII.12

    Apr 52a.m., 587

    SR-MS

    1.5°

    -10.44° !

    11.94°

    Comments:

    Sky Map Pro's range of difference between its results and those of the text is 3.57° and 14.35°. Average difference 8.6°.

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    A reminder of why we're going to all this trouble. The Nov. 1, 2011 Watchtower stated on p. 28 in one of its notes:

    18a. These time intervals ("lunar threes") are the measurement of time from, for example, sunset to moonset on the first day of the month and during two other periods later in the month. Scholars have tied these time measurements to calendar dates. ... For ancient observers to measure this period required some sort of clock. Such measurements were not reliable.

    As has been demonstrated - thus far having used 4 different astronomical programs - these time measurements only become 'unreliable' when they are applied to the wrong year. When they are applied to the correct year, the measurements fit - they are reliable. This is why "scholars have tied [them] to calendar dates" like 568/7 B.C.E. for VAT 4956! This is also why the researcher(s) behind the Watchtower article rejects them!

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Ann,

    I know this question is slightly off-topic, but you have just mentioned the Watchtower article's rejection of "some sort of clock. Such measurements were not reliable".

    What was the "reliable" method of measuring that the Watchtower article DOES accept?

    It's one thing for the WT to criticise the use of clocks but they failed to explain the method they accept. Can you help?

    Thanks,

    Doug

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    Hi Doug,

    Good question. The WT note 18a continues:

    On the other hand, calculating the position of the moon in relation to other celestial bodies was done with greater certainty.

    And before that, note 18 says:

    Since the moon can easily be tracked, the positions of those other celestial bodies mentioned on VAT 4956 and connected to the moon can be identified and their positions dated with a good measure of certainty.

    So it looks like the WT accepts the tablet's cubit distance measurements between the moon and other celestial bodies.

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    Doug and AnnOMaly --

    You have probably seen this already, but for those who have not:

    In the introduction to volume 1 of ADT (Sachs and Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts, 1988, ISBN 3-7001-1227-0), Sachs has a section on Time Measurement (p. 16 of the Introduction.)

    He says that "From the diaries it is not apparent how time intervals were measured. The general assumption is that waterclocks were used. [footnote ref. to A. Aaboe, Centaurus 24 24]. These instruments are attested in texts ( see the dictionaries s.v. dibdibbu, maltaktu) but little is known about their construction. [Footnote ref to O. Neugebauer, Isis 37 37ff.] "

    "Another candidate for time measurement is the sundial ... In any case sundials, which work only during daytime, would have been of very limited usefulness for the purposes of the diaries."

    "It is of course also possible to measure time at night by means of fixed stars. Lists of ziqpu stars ... could be used for exactly this purpose. Unfortunately most time intervals recorded in the diaries, especially those concerning the moon, fall around sunrise or sunset when only few stars are visible. On the other hand, the inaccuracy of time measurement seems to have been of little importance for the development of Babylonian astronomy. [footnote ref. to O. Neugebauer, A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy.1975, page 545.]
  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    AnnOMaly --

    Thanks for the Sky Map Pro and Alcyone Ephemeris charts!

    I have the results from the JPL [Jet Propulsion Laboratory] HORIZONS EPHEMERIDES for all three years. They are entirely consistent with the results from other software programs previously posted on this thread.

    I will stick them into chart form and post them a little later.

    Here is the address for the JPL HORIZONS site, along with the settings I used:

    http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi#results

    Ephemeris Type [change] :

    OBSERVER

    Target Body [change] :

    Sun [Sol] [10]

    Observer Location [change] :

    user defined ( 44°24'00.0''E, 32°33'00.0''N )

    Time Span [change] :

    Start=588 BC-04-15 UT+3, Stop=587 BC-05-01, Step=1m

    Table Settings [change] :

    QUANTITIES=1; RTS flag=TVH

    Display/Output [change] :

    default (formatted HTML)

    Ephemeris Type [change] :

    OBSERVER

    Target Body [change] :

    Moon [Luna] [301]

    Observer Location [change] :

    user defined ( 44°24'00.0''E, 32°33'00.0''N )

    Time Span [change] :

    Start=568 BC-01-01 UT+3, Stop=567 BC-07-30, Step=1m

    Table Settings [change] :

    QUANTITIES=1; RTS flag=TVH

    Display/Output [change] :

    default (formatted HTML)

    Note: RTS is rise, transit, set.

    RTS MARKERS (TVH). Rise and set are with respect to the reference ellipsoid true visual horizon defined by the elevation cut-off angle. Horizon dip and yellow-light refraction (Earth only) are considered. Accuracy is < or = to twice the requested search step-size.

    Since I set step-size to 1 minute, the accuracy is less than or equal to 2 minutes.

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom
    AnnOMaly, Post 2081: As has been demonstrated - thus far having used 4 different astronomical programs - these time measurements only become 'unreliable' when they are applied to the wrong year. When they are applied to the correct year, the measurements fit - they are reliable. This is why "scholars have tied [them] to calendar dates" like 568/7 B.C.E. for VAT 4956! This is also why the researcher(s) behind the Watchtower article rejects them!

    If you add in my results from JPL, we now have 5 different astronomical programs which have been used to check the Lunar Three intervals on VAT 4956. The Lunar Threes have also been checked by scholars F. Richard Stephenson, David M. Willis, and Hermann Hunger.

    The results confirm that the Lunar Three intervals on VAT 4956 fit the accepted year of 568/567 BCE, but do not fit 588/587 BCE.

    In fact, we have demonstrated conclusively that several of the Lunar Three intervals are IMPOSSIBLE for the year 588/587 BCE. Why are they impossible? Because the moon set BEFORE sunrise and therefore the interval SR - MS (sunrise to moonset) is meaningless.

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    Thank you Alleymom! Looking forward to your chart.

    I think it's also worth adding the Stephenson and Willis comments in their article's conclusion (I had forgotten about this important point until reminded a couple of days ago):

    "The observations analysed here are sufficiently diverse and accurate to enable the accepted date of the tablet - i.e., 568-567 BC - to be confidently affirmed. It should be emphasized that although the circumstances of conjunctions of the moon with stars tend to repeat at 19 year intervals (the Metonic cycle), this is not the case for lunar threes." - Under One Sky, p. 428 [emphasis mine].

    The WT writer believes the lunar positions relative to other celestial bodies (meaning stars/constellations, obviously, as the moon's (timed) positions relative to the sun have been dismissed) are more reliable for dating purposes. Stephenson and Willis seem to be saying the opposite - that Lunar Threes don't repeat cyclically and therefore tend to be distinctive to a certain year.

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom
    AlleymomRe: WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2 posted 24 days ago (9/2/2011)



    Post 1262 of 1372
    Since 10/19/2001

    From my post 1159, November 2007 --

    The data in astronomical diary VAT 4956 was analyzed and verified by Dr. Richard Stephenson and Dr. David M. Willis. Their paper on VAT 4956 was presented at a conference on "Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East," held in June 2001 at the British Museum. The research papers from the conference were published in 2002 in a book edited by Dr. John Steele, an archeo-astronomer in the Department of Physics at Durham University.

    The title of the book is Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (Band 297 in the series Alter Orient und Altes Testament), edited by John M. Steele and Annette Imahusen, published in 2002 by Ugarit-Verlag, Munster. The name of the article is "The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis," by Dr. Richard Stephenson and Dr. David M. Willis, pp. 421-428.

    They discussed VAT 4956 again in an article with the same title, published in December 2004 in the journal Astronomy and Geophysics, volume 45, issue 6, pages 6.15 - 6.17: "The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis."

    I have read (and have copies of) both articles.

    The authors "confidently" confirm the accepted date of 568/567 BCE for the astronomical data found in VAT 4956.

    They especially emphasize that the results of the "lunar threes" observations in VAT 4956 are not observations that would have been repeated at Metonic-cycle intervals. They give a very clear explanation of the "lunar threes" --- briefly, these were three time-intervals which were tracked and recorded each month: 1) the interval from sunset to moonset (on the first of the month); 2) sunrise to moonset (middle of the month); moonrise to sunrise (near the end of the month) --- and they explain that these usually enable one to arrive at the exact date by comparing the observed time-intervals with computer calculations. The authors conclude that "the various lunar threes in the text are quite in keeping with a date for the tablet of 568-567 B.C. In addition, reference to Table 1 reveals that even at this early date, timing errors were typically of the order of 1[degree] - no mean achievement." p. 424

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom
    AnnOMaly, Post 2083:

    The WT writer believes the lunar positions relative to other celestial bodies (meaning stars/constellations, obviously, as the moon's (timed) positions relative to the sun have been dismissed) are more reliable for dating purposes. Stephenson and Willis seem to be saying the opposite - that Lunar Threes don't repeat cyclically and therefore tend to be distinctive to a certain year.

    I've added highlighting to your post 2083 and to my post 1262 (quoting post 1159) above, for people who are just skimming.

    And I will repeat:

    The Lunar Three readings, by themselves, are enough to disqualify 588/587 BCE as a possible date for VAT 4956. Some of the Lunar Three intervals --- the sunrise to moonset (SR - MS) intervals ---- are impossible because the moon set BEFORE the sunrise.

    Furthermore, if it is true, as many have suggested, that the Writing Dept. monitors this board, then they have known this since Nov. 2007. At the very least, they knew it when they added footnote 18a in between footnotes 18 and 19. Footnote 18a is a reference to the Stephenson/Willis article.

    Just one more example of the WTS's misuse of scholarly sources.

  • Alleymom
  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    Last entry in column 7 of the previous chart was missing the degree symbol. Here is the corrected chart:

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    Here are the Sky View Cafe results formatted to match the JPL chart in my previous post. Don't know why it is fuzzy.

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    Alleymom, these are fantastic! Thanks for all your hard work and adding them to this thread

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    AnnOMaly - Note that the IMPOSSIBLE! readings are impossible impossible for 588/587 BCE! Dead-as-a-doornail impossible!

    From The Princess Bride: Miracle Max (Billy Crystal): Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. WT Writing Dept. (desperately trying to spin Lunar Three results): Maybe 588/587 BCE is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between MOSTLY dead and ALL dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. Maybe the clocks were wrong.

    Memo to the Writing Department -- Your proposed year of 588/587 BCE for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar is not just MOSTLY dead. It is ALL dead. It is not even SLIGHTLY alive! When the moon has set more than half an hour BEFORE sunrise, you can't measure the "sunrise to moonset" interval (SR - MS) because the moon isn't there to be measured! Marjorie Alley, still Keeping It Simple, Sweetie!

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    From never a jw's post on THIS THREAD.

    --------

    Here's a part of my research, only the good matches. Scroll to the right with the lower bar to see the entire table

    37th year of Nabuchadnezzar or Julian Year 568/567 BC, beginning April 23, 568 (more precisely April 22 after sunset) and ending April 12, 567 BC at sunset

    Month

    Day

    First Day

    Julian

    Interval

    Measured

    Begin

    End

    Interval

    Degrees

    Differ

    Abs.

    Judgement

    Difference

    (Babyl.)

    Julian

    Date

    VAT 4956

    Sky X

    Sky X

    Sky X

    (decimal)

    ence

    Diff

    Call

    (minutes)

    I

    14

    23-Apr

    May 6, 568

    SR-MS

    4

    5:13:42

    5:30:08

    0:16:26

    4.11

    0.11

    0.11

    Excellent

    0.43

    min.

    II

    26

    23-May

    June 17, 568

    MR-SR

    23

    3:17:06

    4:46:32

    1:29:26

    22.26

    -0.74

    0.74

    Excellent

    2.97

    min.

    III

    1

    21-Jun

    June 20, 568

    SS-MS

    20

    7:08:52

    8:36:47

    1:27:55

    21.98

    1.98

    1.98

    Good

    7.92

    min.

    III

    15

    21-Jun

    July 5, 568

    SR-MS

    7.5

    4:49:11

    5:23:21

    0:34:10

    8.54

    1.04

    1.04

    Very good

    4.17

    min.

    XI

    1

    13-Feb

    Feb 12, 567

    SS-MS

    14.5

    5:43:23

    6:52:59

    1:09:36

    17.40

    2.90

    2.90

    Acceptable

    11.60

    min.

    XII

    1

    15-Mar

    March 14, 567

    SS-MS

    25

    6:06:26

    7:49:07

    1:42:41

    25.67

    0.67

    0.67

    Excellent

    2.68

    min.

    XII

    12

    15-Mar

    March 26, 567

    SR-MS

    1.5

    6:08:52

    6:12:00

    0:03:08

    0.75

    -0.75

    0.75

    Excellent

    3.00

    min.

    Average difference

    0.74

    1.17

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    I wonder what Ethos will make of this thread ? LOL

    Thanks to all for contributing this excellent research, which will forever be useful, well, until the WT finally abandon their silly 607BCE thingy.

  • never a jw
    never a jw

    Program used: The SkyX Light Edition

    The table for Furulli's year contains up to three dates for the same babylonian date because is not clear,

    at least to me, what Julian dates Furulli wanted to match with the calendar dates of the VAT 4956 lunar

    threes. You will see on the far right who selected each of those three alternative dates (scroll to the right using the bar at the bottom)

    Never a JW

    37th year of Nabuchadnezzar or Julian Year 568/567 BC, beginning April 22 after sunset and ending April 12, 567 BC at sunset

    Date

    First Day

    Julian

    Interval

    Measured

    Begin

    End

    Interval

    Degrees

    Differ

    Abs.

    Judgment

    Diff.

    (Babyl.)

    Julian

    Date

    VAT 4956

    Sky X

    Sky X

    Sky X

    (decimal)

    ence

    Diff

    Call

    (min.)

    I-14

    23-Apr

    May 6, 568

    SR-MS

    4

    5:13:42

    5:30:08

    0:16:26

    4.11

    0.11

    0.11

    Excellent

    0.43

    II-26

    23-May

    June 17, 568

    MR-SR

    23

    3:17:06

    4:46:32

    1:29:26

    22.26

    -0.74

    0.74

    Excellent

    2.97

    III-1

    21-Jun

    June 20, 568

    SS-MS

    20

    7:08:52

    8:36:47

    1:27:55

    21.98

    1.98

    1.98

    Good

    7.92

    III-15

    21-Jun

    July 5, 568

    SR-MS

    7.5

    4:49:11

    5:23:21

    0:34:10

    8.54

    1.04

    1.04

    Very good

    4.17

    XI-1

    13-Feb

    Feb 12, 567

    SS-MS

    14.5

    5:43:23

    6:52:59

    1:09:36

    17.40

    2.90

    2.90

    Acceptable

    11.60

    XII-1

    15-Mar

    March 14, 567

    SS-MS

    25

    6:06:26

    7:49:07

    1:42:41

    25.67

    0.67

    0.67

    Excellent

    2.68

    XII-12

    15-Mar

    March 26, 567

    SR-MS

    1.5

    6:08:52

    6:12:00

    0:03:08

    0.75

    -0.75

    0.75

    Excellent

    3.00

    Average difference

    1.17

    Year 588/587, beginning April 4/3, 588 and ending April 22, 587 BC at sunset

    Date

    First Day

    Julian

    Interval

    Measured

    Begin

    End

    Interval

    Degrees

    Differ

    Abs.

    Judgment

    Diff.

    (Babyl.)

    Julian

    Date

    VAT 4956

    Sky X

    (decimal)

    ence

    Diff

    Call

    (min.)

    I-14

    4-Apr

    April 17, 588

    SR-MS

    4

    5:37:41

    5:28:47

    0:08:54

    -2.23

    -6.23

    6.23

    Very bad!!

    24.90

    II-26

    4-May

    May 29, 588

    MR-SR

    23

    3:46:04

    4:53:24

    1:07:20

    16.83

    -6.17

    6.17

    Very bad

    24.67

    III-1

    2-Jun

    June 1, 588

    SS-MS

    20

    6:58:19

    7:49:56

    0:51:37

    12.90

    -7.10

    7.10

    Very bad

    28.38

    III-15

    2-Jun

    June 16, 588

    SR-MS

    7.5

    4:46:38

    5:12:22

    0:25:44

    6.43

    -1.07

    1.07

    Very good

    4.27

    XI-1

    25-Jan

    Jan 24, 587

    SS-MS

    14.5

    5:26:16

    6:34:10

    1:07:54

    16.98

    2.48

    2.48

    Acceptable

    9.90

    XII-1

    24-Feb

    Feb 23, 587

    SS-MS

    25

    5:52:22

    7:43:13

    1:50:51

    27.71

    2.71

    2.71

    Acceptable

    10.85

    XII-12

    24-Feb

    March 7, 587

    SR-MS

    1.5

    6:35:09

    6:06:42

    0:28:27

    -7.11

    -8.61

    8.61

    Very bad!!

    34.45

    Average difference

    4.91

    In penultimate column the exclamation points indicate an impossible measurement

    Year 588/587, beginning May 3/2, 588 -- according to R. Furruli / Watchtower calendar

    Date

    First Day

    Julian

    Interval

    Measured

    Begin

    End

    Interval

    Degrees

    Differ

    Abs.

    Judgement

    Diff.

    (Babyl.)

    Julian

    Date

    VAT 4956

    Sky X

    (decimal)

    ence

    Diff

    Call

    (min.)

    I-14

    3-May

    May 17, 588

    SR-MS

    4

    5:02:38

    5:08:25

    0:05:47

    1.45

    -2.55

    2.55

    Acceptable

    10.22

    Hunger

    May 16, 588

    SR-MS

    4

    5:03:33

    4:32:52

    0:30:41

    -7.67

    -11.67

    11.67

    Very Bad!!

    46.68

    Ann, N a JW

    II-26

    1-Jun

    June 28, 588

    MR-SR

    23

    3:35:56

    4:47:06

    1:11:10

    17.79

    -5.21

    5.21

    Very bad

    20.83

    Hunger

    June 26, 588

    MR-SR

    23

    2:22:11

    4:46:45

    2:24:34

    36.14

    13.14

    13.14

    Very bad

    52.57

    Never a JW

    June 27, 588

    MR-SR

    23

    2:57:43

    4:46:55

    1:49:12

    27.30

    4.30

    4.30

    Bad

    17.20

    AnnOMaly

    III-1

    1-Jul

    July 1, 588

    SS-MS

    20

    7:11:30

    8:20:16

    1:08:46

    17.19

    -2.81

    2.81

    Acceptable

    11.23

    Hunger

    June 30, 588

    SS-MS

    20

    7:11:58

    7:30:58

    0:19:00

    4.75

    -15.25

    15.25

    Bad

    61.00

    Ann, N a JW

    III-15

    1-Jul

    July 16, 588

    SR-MS

    7.5

    4:54:22

    5:57:52

    1:03:30

    15.88

    8.38

    8.38

    Very bad

    33.50

    Hunger

    July 15, 588

    SR-MS

    7.5

    4:53:48

    4:51:30

    0:02:18

    -0.58

    -8.08

    8.08

    Very bad !!

    32.30

    Ann, N a JW

    XI-1

    23-Feb

    Feb 22, 587

    SS-MS

    14.5

    5:51:34

    6:32:15

    0:40:41

    10.17

    -4.33

    4.33

    Bad

    17.32

    H, Ann, N a JW

    XII-1

    24-Mar

    March 24, 587

    SS-MS

    25

    6:12:52

    7:38:12

    1:25:20

    21.33

    -3.67

    3.67

    Bad

    14.67

    Hunger, Ann

    March 23, 587

    SS-MS

    25

    6:12:14

    6:28:27

    0:16:13

    4.14

    -20.86

    20.86

    Very bad

    83.45

    Never a JW

    XII-12

    24-Mar

    April 7, 587

    SR-MS

    1.5

    5:51:56

    6:11:20

    0:19:24

    4.85

    3.35

    3.35

    Bad

    13.40

    Hunger

    April 4, 587

    SR-MS

    1.5

    5:56:12

    4:42:34

    1:13:38

    18.41

    -19.91

    19.91

    Very bad !!

    79.63

    Never a JW

    April 5, 587

    SR-MS

    1.5

    5:54:47

    5:13:49

    0:40:58

    10.24

    -11.74

    11.74

    Very Bad!!

    46.97

    AnnOMaly

    Average difference

    8.43

    4.33

    13.32

    for dates chosen by

    AnnOMaly

    Hunger

    N a JW

    Excellent

    Under 3 minutes

    Very good

    Under 6 minutes

    Good

    Under 9 minutes

    Acceptable

    Under 12 minutes

    Bad

    Between 12 and 20 min.

    Very bad

    Over 20 minutes

Share with others