You used a Straw Man in ascribing a fallacious statement to me.
I noted that if the ancients had went with the only evidence that was available (Clement’s writings,) and chose March or April, that Christmas would not have been associated with certain Roman pagan holidays (Saturnalia or the Feast of the Unconquered Sun - each close to December 25th).
If you can show that there are at least two Roman pagan festivals like the aforementioned that would have taken place in March or April that could have been associated with Christ’s birth then you would have some proof that we might be in the same situation if the ancients chose March or April and that I used a fallacious statement.
Among other festivals, the Roman’s celebrated five festivals in late March (the 17th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 31st) and among other festivals, the Roman’s celebrated four in late April (the 21st, 23rd, 25th and 27th) - and none of these festivals in late March or April (in contrast to late December’s “Saturnalia” on the 17th to the 23rd of December and the “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun” on December 25th) could possibly be used in connection with Christ’s birth.
Thus the ancients did not choose well, and I proffered no fallacious statement.
" ... and thus we would not have Christmas being torn up because of their actions in choosing a celebration of Christ’s birth that was too close to comfort to certain pagan holidays. "
You have no proof that this is true.
It is interesting to note that the sun, on the winter solstice, reaches it's lowest point on the horizon, and remains in that state (at sunset) for three days (signifying death).
21+3=24. The day the sun is reborn is, and always has been the 25th. It is that day wherein it begins to rise... That direct observance is the point, regardless of whichever calendar. Likewise Ishtar's day (Easter), which has always been the first 'day of the sun' past the vernal equinox.