Should we observe the visual new moon crescent: as observed locally, or as it is seen from Jerusalem, which? by Wayne Atchison

Question: Should we observe the visual new moon crescent: as observed locally, or as it is seen from Jerusalem, which?

Analysis: This is not a simple question. It is not really a question about the rules of the calendar, but about the administration of applying the rules over a full 360 degree earth. I will attempt to break it out logically. There are two basic approaches: 1) is to “Use An International Date Line Approach”, and 2) is to “Keep It As You Observe It Approach”.

A.) Use An International Date Line Approach: Here are the steps in logic:

1.) My location in Bend Oregon is 121.30 degrees west, and Jerusalem is about 35.22 east. This nets about 156.52 degrees separation from Jerusalem. Half around the globe would be 180 degrees from Jerusalem, or at about longitude 144.78 degrees west. Thus, my local is about 23.5 degrees short of being half way around the earth from Jerusalem.

2.) It takes about 12 hours for the earth to rotate half way around. This is 15 degrees every hour. So 156.52 degrees means that my sunsets are about (156.52 / 15) 10.43 hours after Jerusalem's sunsets.

3.) Since I am about 10.43 (from now on I will use 11) hours after Jerusalem, the moon has around 11 hours of time to grow in its new crescent visibility by the time I try to see it in Bend.

4.) This means that if Jerusalem observers can see the crescent, then I certainly can see it.

5.) This means that if Jerusalem observers cannot see the crescent, then 11 hours later I may possibly be able to see it.

Now, what if the Jerusalem observers do not see the crescent, but I do? Do they accept my report, or do I ignore my own sighting and wait 24 hours, letting the Jerusalem observers finally see it first?

6.) Before the above questions can be answered, this question must be answered first: “How far west of Jerusalem do they allow observers to see the new crescent, so that the observers in Jerusalem will also accept their sightings as being valid for themselves?”

7.) Look at this question from the reverse direction. If you were standing 1 mile east of Jerusalem, and did not see the crescent, but the observers 1 mile west of you did see it, would you (just 1 mile away) have to wait 23.9999 hours before you kept the new moon?

8.) One needs to keep in mind that sighting a new crescent is in itself a "lucky" event. The "luck" comes in the form of "no clouds", "no haze or dust", "no humidity", "not too windy", "the moon was bright enough", and "the moon was above the horizon long enough for it to get dark enough". This is to say that it is easy for one person to spot the new crescent while the people "right over the hill" do not. In practice we must all be willing to accept the sighting of another person as if it were our own.

9.) Therefore it is reasonable that observers 1 mile east of Jerusalem should be willing to accept a sighting from someone 1 mile west of themselves. The same would hold true for the observers in Jerusalem. In fact, the Jerusalem synod would allow witnesses to come and give testimony of the new crescent 18 hours later, all the way up to 12 noon the next day. The main point is that sightings from western observers were considered valid.

10.) But how far west of themselves are the observers in Jerusalem willing to accept? How about 100 miles? How about ¼ the way around the earth? How about ½ the way around the earth? Half way around the earth would effectively establish an International Date Line in the Pacific Ocean beyond the Oregon coast but before Hawaii.

11.) Now half way means that the Jerusalem observers will accept a westerner's sighting 12 hours later, all the way up until the next morning their time. Since we have telephones and the Internet, we can assume instant communication of valid sightings. This means that the Jerusalem observers will not know until morning if the day is a new moon day or not. They may have up to 12 hours of uncertainty.

[Note that some may suggest that the International Date Line be at Jerusalem. In this approach a new crescent is observed over Jerusalem, and then instantaneously the whole earth is informed of the new month. Notice that this approach has exactly the same uncertainty of 12 hours, just that it effects those ½ day east of Jerusalem. That is, those east of Jerusalem are already into their night, but they will not know if it’s a new month night until it is Jerusalem’s turn at trying to see the new crescent. Thus, it does not matter where you place the International Date Line, ½ of the earth will have the 12 hours of uncertainty problem.

Also, as an additional problem with setting Jerusalem as the International Date Line: if Jerusalem does not see the crescent, then everyone west of it must wait. This means that those west may actually see the new crescent in their sky, but be prevented from observing it for 24 hours, waiting for Jerusalem to see it first. That is, observers west of Jerusalem may see the crescent in their sky, but cannot count it for another 24 hours. Thus, ½ of the earth is not allowed to observe their own new crescent, and the other half has 12 hours of uncertainty. Most agree that placing the International Date Line at Jerusalem is a very poor administration.]

12.) But what about the observers that live 1 mile on the far side of "half way around the earth"? If no westerner's saw the crescent, do they still have to wait a full 24 hours before they keep the new moon, even though they saw it in their sky?

13.) Most agree that ignoring the crescent seen over your own sky, and having to wait another 24 hours to observe the new moon, when Jerusalem is going to see it in just a few hours or minutes, is a poor administration. The solution to #12 is that those observers beyond the International Date Line need to observe the new moon as they see it. For example, those in China or Babylon would observe it as they see it, knowing that Jerusalem will do the same just a few hours later.

14.) Thus, with this approach we have three main administrative problems:

½ of the earth west of Jerusalem is waiting up to 12 hours in uncertainty,

or

½ of the earth west of Jerusalem must wait up to 24 hours because Jerusalem did not see it first,

and

½ of the earth east of Jerusalem are to keep the new moon as they observe it, knowing Jerusalem will see it in a few hours.

15.) The advantage to this approach is that the whole earth is synchronized to keeping the new moon on the same Gregorian calendar day as Jerusalem. Only a few people really find this advantage to be a serious consideration. The ancient calendar has nothing to do with the modern Gregorian calendar.

16.) The only positive reason for choosing this administrative approach is that the focus of the whole earth is centered on Jerusalem. This focus sounds Biblical, until you consider that everyone living prior to our modern computers and telephones could not have been able to keep this calendar, as they had no way to know what the folks in Jerusalem could or could not see. Only in our modern times is this administrative approach a consideration.

B.) Keep It As You Observe It Approach: Note that this is also the same approach that ½ of the earth must use anyway to implement the International Dateline Approach. Here are the steps in logic:

17.) Just as with the Sabbath, sunset occurs and the next day begins. So also each observer keeps the new month as it comes to them. When they see the new crescent, they start the new month.

18.) Individuals and groups will also accept other observer’s sightings. Since we have telephones and the Internet, we can assume instant communication of validated sightings. This acceptance has two directions: accepting sightings east of yourself, and accepting sightings west of yourself. These will be addressed starting with #22 below.

19.) Thus, with this approach the new month begins starting at some “first observers' " longitude on the earth. Those west of the “first observers" know that it is the new moon night, while those more than 10 degrees east of the “first observers" know that their region could not see it yet. If you cannot see it, then there is nothing to celebrate until the next night anyway.

20.) The advantages to this approach is that it is very simple, has a historical basis in that it is the same method as Sabbath observance, and there is no delay in knowing if the new month has started.

21.) One disadvantage to this approach is that some observers may decide to accept a sighting, while other observers “next door” decide to wait a day. This looseness goes against the idea that God’s Holy Days must be on a specific day for everyone, or else.

A similar disadvantage is that some larger Church groups may not want to have the Holy Days scheduled on different Gregorian calendar dates. For example, Denver on one date and New York (who did not see the crescent yet) waiting to the next day. One solution is to allow any sighting on the west coast of California or Oregon to be acceptable for the whole group in the United States, so both New York and Denver are scheduled on the same Gregorian date.

One of the biggest objections to this approach is that the whole earth is not synchronized to keeping the new moon as it is proclaimed as sanctified in Jerusalem.

22.) Accepting sightings east of yourself: If the crescent is sighted east of yourself, then that means that you have even a better chance to see it then did they. The eastern observer saw the crescent first, more time elapses while the earth spins to your more western longitude, the moon grows even brighter, and then you can see it. Therefore sightings by an observer at a specified longitude are accepted by all others at or after (west of) that observer’s longitude. For example, if observers in Denver see the crescent, then everyone west of Denver would accept the sightings too.

23.) Accepting sightings west of yourself: As explained in #8 above, it is only practical that each of us accept a sighting from a more western observer. The question posed is: “How far west of yourself do you allow observers to see the new crescent, so that you will also accept their sightings as being valid for yourself?” This is the same question as posed in #6 above with the International Date Line Approach. The answer in that approach is 12 hours. But can we establish an authoritative basis for an answer?

24.) The first question to ask is one of motives: “Am I waiting for another observer because it was cloudy and I just could not verify the crescent, or, do I know that there was really no way I could have seen the crescent, but I am still waiting because I want to keep the same day as those who are west of me?” This question of motives is very important, but it does not matter how we would answer. What matters is how the astronomy scholars of the Second Temple Era would have answered. Our logic should be based upon the authority of their calendar (not ours).

25.) It can be argued that the observed calendar of the Second Temple Era, by allowing witnesses all the way until noon the next day, 18 hours later, demonstrates that they not only were willing to accept 18 hours of uncertainty, but also suggests that they would accept a western sighting even though they knew it was improbable for the crescent to be seen over Jerusalem.

26.) Okay, lets analyze this. They did not have telephones back then, so what exactly does 18 hours mean in terms of walking or riding a horse? But it's not really 18 hours, as the observer would be expected to sleep before a long trip to Jerusalem. If we allow 6 hours of sleep, then we are allowing 12 hours of travel time. If your walking that’s only about 15 to 30 miles. If your riding that’s about 60 to 200 miles.

That’s not very far, so lets be generous and allow witnesses on really fast horses with incredible endurance that can race 300 miles of lateral western longitude (they would have to dip down towards Cairo Egypt to avoid the Mediterranean Sea, so that the actual distance traveled would be much greater) over sand within 18 hours. I am being most generous to make a point.

The reality is that 300 miles of lateral western longitude on the ground only represents about ((((300 / 25000) * 360) / 15) * 60) = 17.28 minutes of solar time (earth’s spin).

That is, if you were standing in Jerusalem at sunset, and you said: “sunset is now”, and then you waited 17.28 minutes, the western witness waiting on his super fast horse will then at that moment also say: “sunset is now”.

27.) Thus, we see that allowing 18 hours for witnesses to arrive in Jerusalem is the same as only allowing the crescent to grow in visibility by 17.28 minutes or less.

Now, can a western witness better see a crescent that grows by 17 minutes? In 17.28 minutes the crescent will only grow in illumination by about 0.022%, which is completely indiscernible. Because I exaggerated the 300 miles, I can now strongly argue that: by waiting for witnesses, the calendar priests were not attempting to give the western observer any advantage due to having greater visibility. The only purpose for allowing others to be witnesses was to compensate for cloudy or otherwise obscured conditions over Jerusalem. Their motive was not to cheat the moon’s visibility. Mathematically the strength of this argument does not diminish until you allow witnesses to travel about 700 miles to Jerusalem in the allowed 18 hours.

28.) Since we are not trying to allow significant extra time to elapse so that the moon’s visibility becomes more likely to be seen by a western observer, it then follows that the 18 hours of uncertainty experienced by the Temple’s synod was due to travel time, not because they wanted to wait that long. Certainly if they witnessed the crescent themselves, they would not wait another second. Therefore it is not a tenet of the observed calendar that we must have uncertainty.

29.) So, how far west can we allow without giving the western observer a significant advantage because the moon is brighter? In Jerusalem on September 18, 2001 in the evening near 19:30, looking for the new crescent of the 7th month, the moon grew in visibility at the rate of about 0.1% illumination per 39 minutes. That is not much change in 39 minutes, but twice this value (0.2%) is potentially large enough to represent an advantage. So about 40 minutes, that is about 10 degrees of longitude, which is also the time it takes after sunset for twilight to end, is an astronomically based, reasonable, and unassuming value.

30.) Therefore, it is reasonable and unassuming to allow 40 minutes of uncertainty, in which time you wait to find out if a more western observer has better visibility than yourself. Thus, accepting sightings which are 10 degrees (about 700 miles) or less more western than yourself is astronomically acceptable. Allowing a western observer to be up to 40 minutes after yourself will effectively allow communities and regions to be synchronized on the same lunar day.

The Answer:

Although the “Use An International Date Line Approach” seems more logical to the western mind, it is the most frustrating. The advantage of the whole earth being synchronized on the same Gregorian calendar day with Jerusalem is arbitrary (that is, who cares about keeping the same Gregorian date), and requires the penalty that ½ the earth waiting up to 12 hours in uncertainty, while the other half are allowed to observe it as it comes to them. Notice that another way of saying this is: ½ of the earth’s population does not really observe the new crescent, they are waiting up to 12 hours to see if someone else does. For ½ of the earth this approach is not really an observed calendar, while for the other half of the earth it is.

A way to avoid this penalty is for Jerusalem to declare the new month based upon the mathematical probability that the new crescent will be seen by someone by the time it gets to the west coast of America. This would solve the problem, but then, is this approach still to be considered an observed calendar? The new month would be declared by calculations, not observations.

Because this approach splits the earth into implementing two different methods, one side waiting and the other side observing, this approach seems a very poor administration.

The “Keep It As You Observe It Approach” is the most practical. This approach has the whole earth using the same method, with little uncertainty for local observers, and has everyone using a truly observed calendar. Further, this method may be used even without modern communications. It would be the only method you could use if your community were isolated.

1.) The disadvantage posed to larger groups is actually not a real problem. It is arbitrary to insist that everyone within a large region (like the size of the United States) all must keep the same Gregorian calendar date. Gregorian dates are used for scheduling reservations at hotels, not for keeping the Sabbaths or the new months.

There really is no problem with letting each new month begin at some movable longitude (meaning each month the new month starts at a different place on the earth). If it turns out that in some years Denver keeps the Holy Days one Gregorian calendar day ahead of New York, then so what? For New York (because they did not see the crescent) it is still nighttime of their 30th day of the lunar month. For Denver (because they did see the new crescent) it is nighttime of their first day of the next lunar month. But then later, for New York it will become nighttime of their first day of the next lunar month. The observed calendar must assume a sunset-to-sunset definition of: "The Same Day".

The issue is: "The Same Day". . In our culture we do not like to think about a Holy Day phone call from Denver to a friend in New York who is not keeping that same day Holy. But this is exactly how the Sabbath works. A phone call between New York and Denver can occur on two different sunset-to-sunset dates, one person is keeping the Sabbath while the other is not keeping it yet.

This perceived problem is only a problem because we have the potential for instantaneous communication over large distances. The fact that you can communicate instantaneously over large distances is not a calendar problem, it is a social problem.

2.) The other disadvantage, that of the potential for “looseness”, is somewhat troubling, but then again, for what reason did the observers “next door” decide to wait a day? Why did they not accept the sightings of others? If they are “separatists”, and “that independent”, then are they really part of the consideration process for everyone else? Achieving 100% cooperation from 100% of everyone may not be an attainable goal. Lack of cooperation between groups is certainly not a problem the calendar can solve.

As the new crescent’s visibility gets greater and greater as time elapses, sightings east of yourself should be immediately acceptable to everyone really wanting to participate in keeping unity. If it turns out that Dallas waits a Gregorian day while Sacramento keeps the Gregorian day, is that disunity or the natural result of implementing a truly sunset-to-sunset calendar?

3.) In response to the biggest objection: that the whole earth is not waiting for the new moon to be sanctified in Jerusalem. This objection is based upon the concept of the signal fires spreading out from Jerusalem to tell all of the other communities that "it is sanctified". The idea being that Jerusalem must first proclaim that: "it is sanctified" before anyone else can say it. But, is this really “true”?

This objection is based upon the assumption that only the priesthood residing in Jerusalem can determine the calendar. But historically this assumption is not valid. The academies graduated astronomy scholars to be scribes and priests. Those graduates lived and officiated throughout the greater region and beyond. They knew the calendar's rules. It was their responsibility to determine the calendar for their community, even while submitting themselves to the supremacy of Jerusalem’s decisions. When visibility was unclear, they communicated with others. We have some of these letters, so we know this to be a fact. Seeing a signal fire that started in Jerusalem was great confirmation, but “the calendar” is still “the calendar” even if those signal fires did not appear.

Because the whole greater region around Jerusalem spanned less than 30 degrees (about 1 solar hour in each direction), synchronization around Jerusalem was astronomically valid. What they accomplished with Jerusalem's signal fires is very similar to what we would accomplish today by using an Internet Web Site tracking the new crescent sightings for a local region. We would be communicating for the purpose of synchronizing with those around us in our same general longitude.

It is not a tenet of the observed calendar that we must wait for a priest in Jerusalem to sanctify the crescent first. We can see it for ourselves in our own sky. Because our communication methods are even faster than signal fires, confirmations and synchronization can be accomplished region by region, and worldwide.

More Administration:

I. Observation should be made with the "naked eye", ONLY. Binoculars should not be allowed to sight a new crescent. The reason is simple. Consider that the purpose of using binoculars is so that you can see a thinner crescent, sooner after conjunction (the Molad). Thus, the “ultimate super binocular” would allow someone to see a super thin crescent only moments after conjunction. Allowing such sightings would effectively render the calendar to become a Molad calendar instead of a new crescent calendar. The original observed calendar was based upon observing the new crescent, 15 or so hours after the Molad. It is not desirable to shift the calendar towards the Molad. Thus, binoculars should not be allowed.

II. Ancient astronomers used two methods to determine the spring equinox:

1. Line of sight observation:

Morning sun rays passed through slits in a cave or temple wall and shown upon a precisely marked wall in a dark room. The morning of the spring equinox would always have its sun rays hit a specific spot on this dark wall. All cultures used this method, from the American Indians in Arizona to the precise records of the Chinese Bamboo Chronicles. Because the equinox sunrise was not always visible, many temples also employed a sunset mechanism too. They used the exact same method for the other important yearly milestones; fall equinox, summer/winter solstice, mid-summer day, etc.

2. Calculation-estimate of the exact moment of equal day and night (somewhere on earth). Newton (in his book) uses ancient records of their calculations from India to Babylon to Greece to establish that the ancient astronomers could perform the math within about 4 hours of error, that is, deviation from a modern computer’s calculations. In years where both sunrise and sunset were obscured, the astronomers would rely upon their calculations.

III. Regarding allowing the crescent to be seen in winter, and allowing it to be declared the first month of the year:

1. Talking only about the Spring Equinox as measured by the Sun:

The Jerusalem Temple astronomers never allowed the new crescent to be in winter on purpose. But, we 2,000 years later looking back can calculate that in some years it looks like they allowed a winter observation by one or two days. Below is an example for 465 BC, and there are many other examples. Why? This is explained next.

2. They did not just use the sun, they also used the moon too.

Talking about the Zodiac, the sun, and the moon:

The ancient astronomers used the Zodiac extensively. The Zodiac is not astrology, but is pure ASTRONOMY. Dividing the heavens into 12 sections is not evil, it is part of the science of astronomy.

The Spring New Moon occurred when the sun approached the Spring Equinox position in the Zodiac, and the Moon (being ahead of the sun in terms of the Zodiac) was in the spring Zodiac section (we call Aries). Thus, the sun could be “slightly still in winter”, but the new crescent moon was not, it was now “in spring”. Because the distance between the sun and moon is so small (as projected onto the Zodiac) this turns out to only allow the following two error-scenarios:

A. Sunset is still in winter and then,

the New Crescent was seen while the moon is in spring

then later the Sun also entered into spring, still on the same Lunar Day #1

thus, we today calculate that the night portion of Day 1 was in winter as far as the sun was concerned, but as far as the moon was concerned it was in spring.

B. Sunset is still in winter and then,

poor visibility required reliance upon calculations. The more days of poor

visibility prior to the critical night, the worse error for the calculation-estimates.

They calculated that the new crescent (but unseen) was in spring, so they proclaimed Day 1 (but in really the moon was not visible yet).

You can understand that 4+ hours of calculation error is actually quite large for determining new moons in spring.

Then the second night occurs, too late, they already proclaimed the 1st day.

Now we 2500 years later, using modern calculations can show that the sun actually entered into spring on Lunar Day #2. But it was really just a miscalculation.

Today we can see what happened. It was an error, and was not the rule they wanted to follow.

Thus, our reconstruction tables show that they sometimes proclaimed Day 1 while being up to two days in winter. But more likely is that poor visibility erred against them. They thought the moon was in spring, but just calculated slightly off.

There are no other error-scenarios possible as the ancient Temple priests never allowed Lunar Day 3 to occur with the sun still in winter. This is because the calculation errors are not large enough to allow a three day blunder. They would always intercalate, every single time. The alleged Spring Passover Rule was never used by the official Temple priests.

Here is the 465 BC Data, as one of many examples:

From Jerusalem:

New Crescent evening of: –464/03/24 or 03/25

Modern Astronomical 1551666.851306 = = -464/03/26_08:25 Local Mean Time

Observed Spring 1551667.75 = = -464/03/27_06:00 Local Mean Time

Thus, in this year there was no difference between observers in Babylon and Jerusalem

From Babylon:

Year: -464 Vernal Equinox: (03m 26d) (w=7) (09h 07m)

Conjunction Sun Set Moon Set Ephemeris Time

b> (01m 24d) (w=1) (01m 25d) (w=2) (01m 25d) (w=2) 1551 606. 337 360

(20h 02m) (17h 19m) (18h 27m) 67.9m 1.38%

(02m 23d) (w=3) (02m 23d) (w=3) (02m 23d) (w=3) 1551 635. 331 883

(06h 32m) (17h 43m) (18h 19m) 35.4m 0.50%

-> (02m 23d) (w=3) (02m 24d) (w=4) (02m 24d) (w=4) 1551 636. 376 252

pe (06h 32m) (17h 44m) (19h 23m) 98.5m 3.23%

[ Didn't intercalate but allowed 2 days before sun’s spring ]

1> (03m 23d) (w=4) (03m 24d) (w=5) (03m 24d) (w=5) 1551 665. 367 326 <-Yr21/22

pe (17h 18m) (18h 04m) (19h 10m) 66.1m 1.51%

(04m 22d) (w=6) (04m 22d) (w=6) (04m 22d) (w=6) 1551 694. 358 591

(05h 04m) (18h 21m) (18h 57m) 36.3m 0.44%

-> (04m 22d) (w=6) (04m 23d) (w=7) (04m 23d) (w=7) 1551 695. 398 894

pe (05h 04m) (18h 22m) (19h 55m) 93.7m 2.72%

[BM32234: Eclipse on Egyptian 6/21, Bab 3/15, Julian –464/06/05

proves this was a 3rd month]

3> (05m 21d) (w=7) (05m 22d) (w=1) (05m 22d) (w=1) 1551 724. 386 861

pe (18h 21m) (18h 40m) (19h 38m) 57.7m 1.05%

(06m 20d) (w=2) (06m 20d) (w=2) (06m 20d) (w=2) 1551 753. 369 607

(09h 09m) (18h 56m) (19h 13m) 16.8m 0.17%

-> (06m 20d) (w=2) (06m 21d) (w=3) (06m 21d) (w=3) 1551 754. 400 100

pe (09h 09m) (18h 57m) (19h 57m) 60.3m 1.92%

(07m 20d) (w=4) (07m 20d) (w=4) (07m 20d) (w=4) 1551 783. 370 618

(00h 55m) (18h 58m) (19h 15m) 16.4m 0.63%

-> (07m 20d) (w=4) (07m 21d) (w=5) (07m 21d) (w=5) 1551 784. 394 300

(00h 55m) (18h 58m) (19h 49m) 50.9m 3.04%

(08m 18d) (w=5) (08m 19d) (w=6) (08m 19d) (w=6) 1551 813. 356 725

(16h 50m) (18h 38m) (18h 55m) 16.2m 1.33%

6> (08m 18d) (w=5) (08m 20d) (w=7) (08m 20d) (w=7) 1551 814. 377 851

pe (16h 50m) (18h 37m) (19h 25m) 47.6m 4.49%

(09m 17d) (w=7) (09m 18d) (w=1) (09m 18d) (w=1) 1551 843. 340 035

(08h 16m) (18h 03m) (18h 31m) 27.2m 2.32%

[ Intercalated rather than have observed autumn on 8th day ]

[ Because Day of Atonement must be in the autumn ]

[ Parker and Dubberstein proves intercalated Yr21 ]

6> (09m 17d) (w=7) (09m 19d) (w=2) (09m 19d) (w=2) 1551 844. 363 995 <-Yr21

pe (08h 16m) (18h 02m) (19h 05m) 62.9m 6.53%

(10m 16d) (w=1) (10m 17d) (w=2) (10m 17d) (w=2) 1551 872. 305 959

(22h 54m) (17h 26m) (17h 41m) 14.8m 0.80%

7> (10m 16d) (w=1) (10m 18d) (w=3) (10m 18d) (w=3) 1551 873. 335 205 <-NoDoubt

(22h 54m) (17h 25m) (18h 24m) 58.1m 3.97%

8> (11m 15d) (w=3) (11m 16d) (w=4) (11m 16d) (w=4) 1551 902. 315 471

pe (12h 34m) (16h 59m) (17h 55m) 56.6m 2.01%

[BM32234: Eclipse on Egyptian 12/18, Bab 9/14, Julian –464/11/29

proves this was a 9th month]

[ AP6 also proves this was 9th month ]

(12m 15d) (w=5) (12m 15d) (w=5) (12m 15d) (w=5) 1551 931. 304 971

(00h 59m) (16h 53m) (17h 40m) 47.4m 0.75%

9> (12m 15d) (w=5) (12m 16d) (w=6) (12m 16d) (w=6) 1551 932. 352 524

(00h 59m) (16h 53m) (18h 48m) 115.7m 4.53%

The Conclusion:

One of the bottom lines is that either we are going to keep an observed calendar, or we are going to be keeping someone else’s calendar. Setting an International Date Line is in effect forcing ½ the earth’s population to be keeping someone else’s new crescent sightings, whether that be the new crescent over Jerusalem or the new crescent over the west coast of the United States.

However, by observing the new crescent as it comes visible to your general longitude is the simplest and most natural way of keeping an observed calendar in a global context.