The case for Atlantis at the island of Santorini (anciently Thera) in the Aegean Sea is instructive.
You see, traditional science has two very major objections to the idea of Atlantis in the Atlantic. The first objection is the date that Plato assigns to it of 9,000 years prior to Solon - which I will approximate at 9,600 BC. Archaeology has very carefully catalogued, analyzed and interpreted its finds. It says mankind went through stages called paleolithic (old stone), mesolithic (middle stone), neolithic (new stone), bronze age, iron age and onward. A reading of Plato's Atlantis with this understanding of science in mind most definitely places Atlantis in the bronze age - and perhaps advanced in some ways beyond that. However the bronze age was approximately 2,100 to 1,200 BC. This is completely at odds with the carefully constructed chronology of science.
Some details are revealing. In Plato's Atlantis the inhabitants do metallurgy. But metallurgy is from about 3,000 BC. Plato's describing Atlantis with metallurgy is therefore said to be "wildly anachronistic".
The laws of Atlantis are inscribed on pillars. Note inscribed. Writing is thought to have been invented by the Sumerians somewhere between 2,700 to 2,300 BC. Even if we think "inscribed" should include heiroglyphs that still only takes it back a couple more millennia according to traditional science. Again "wildly anachronistic".
In the dialogues it says Atlantis was a maritime threat to Greece and to Egypt. However, scholars say Greece culture came after 2,000 BC and Egyptian after 5,000 BC. Therefore there were neither Greeks nor Egyptians yet born for the Atlanteans to fight. Again "wildly anachronistic".
Similarly the architecture of Atlantis was certainly not before the bronze age. The social organization and maritime skills of Atlantis as described are also clearly bronze age.
A few decades ago, Galanoupolos, a Greek seismologist, pushed the idea of Santorini in the Aegean as having been the origin for the Plato's myth of Atlantis. Here are some quotes from his book "Atlantis":
"Indeeed there is nothing in the essence of Plato's Atlantis that cannot be matched in the known remains of the high Bronze Age; ; and it is impossible to read his account without being sure that what is being described is indeed a Bronze Age civilization - perhaps one that we know not of, possibly one that we know under another name."
"This ... is what Plato has said about Atlantis. Is it credible? Obviously not. Can its discrepancies be reconciled? We believe they can."
And finally in summation Galanopoulos states:
"There are other anachronisms which it would be wearisome to pursue since the case is already so strong. One wild anomaly could perhaps have been allowed, but for Atlantis to have everything - architecture, metallurgy, writing, agriculture and unborn opponents - between 3,000 and 7,000 years before their time is manifestly absurd. The date of 9600 BC for Atlantis is both incredible andimpossible, in detail and in general alike."
Galanopoulos found a "solution". He said he could "fix" Plato. He noted that the island of Thera very violently exploded around 1,500 BC. No-one disputes this explosion. It exploded some 900 (not 9000) years before Plato. He noted that tsunami was from Thera would have destroyed the civilation on the nearby Crete (which was destroyed near then). Also he noted that the bull and Poseidonis feature importantly on Crete as they did on Plato's Atlantis. And also Crete was extending maritime threats to both Athens and Egypt.
So Galanopoulos assumed that Plato, who after all was a philosopher and not a historian, had somehow taken bits of information about this destruction at Thera and used it for the basis of his dialogues - whether knowing or not knowing of the changes he was inserting.
It is key to Galanopoulos' final solution that his island of choice was too small by a factor of 10 to be the island Plato described. He turned this to his advantage as he saw it. Somehow Plato had gotten a mistranslation of the Egyptian hierglyphic symbol for "100" and it had been read as "1,000". This explains why both the size of the island and the years ago of the island were both off by a factor of 10. Why that even helped his solution.
And the last detail Plato had said the location of Atlantis was "before the pillars of Hercules". This is the Straits of Gilbraltar by all other accounts. Galanopoulos rather stretched a little and proposed the straits referred to the entrance to a nearby small harbor.
So was the solution of Galanopoulos reasonable? Was it helpful? It is ONLY major solution I know that is acceptable to standard science. Now you see why.
If a proposal comes forth that uses the wrong side of the Straits of Gilbraltar, of a vastly differing size, of a vastly differing time, even with some similarities - is that the Atlantis used by Plato in his dialogues or is it just another incident in history?
On the face of it, what would a reasonable person think?