The "Prophetic Years" business for instance is an obvious fabrication to try to make the numbers come out "right".
As I said before, I am still researching this myself. I am not convinced of the accuracy of our dating methods. I am seeking to determine what methods have been used to obtain the 445 date for Artaxerxes, what methods have been used for the proposed dates of Christ's death, and what margin of error exists within the data currently available. I am also seeking to discover how long the Jewish year was, how long the Assyrian/Babylonian/Persian year was, and how long the Egyptian year was. Through this research, I am certain that I will find evidence of uncertainty in at least one of the currently accepted dates on the magnitude of at least a five year margin of error. Such a small margin is hardly improbable, and even the fact that we are searching for so small an error indicates the likelihood that this passage of Daniel has been accurately fulfilled.
I certainly would not trust that site. I've seen the same rubbish before. in my own investigations...Indeed investigating the rest of the site I find that the author is very greatly distorting the facts.
It was not my intent to present this source as a perfect solution to all of life's problems. I apologize for not making this clear previously. Would it be more beneficial to you if every time I give a source for my arguments I go into great detail regarding all the areas in which I disagree with the author on every topic under the sun?
Forgive the sarcasm; I only use it to emphasize a point. You have challenged the validity of the reference based on a topic which has little bearing on the current discussion. Regardless of his accuracy or inaccuracy in other areas, the author could still be correct in regards to our topic. If you think that he is incorrect in his approach to our topic, you should provide evidence of his error. Otherwise, you should keep in mind that a reference is after all just a reference, not a blanket endorsement.