This letter, I suppose, begins the "heavy lifting". If I don't say it, it is meant with a feeling of sympathy and appreciation for all scientists - even when I disagree. I believe they search after truth just as we on this list search after truth. Though as you note in one of your letters - other motives unfortunately get mixed in.
To understand how geology got here it is necessary to go back to the days when geologists were called naturalists.
Most of us have heard of the hairy mammoth (an extinct animal) found fully frozen in Siberia. What we may not know is that there have been many more and starting in the 1700's. (Why haven't we known this?)
The first woolly rhinocerous was found fully frozen in Siberia in 1772. Part of a hairy mammoth was found frozen in Siberia in 1787. These finds naturally excited the curiosity of the naturalistsand cried out for explanation. But other serious problems and oddities began demanding explanation as well.
The most obvious problem were the erratics - large stones that were out of place. They were found standing isolated in fields, balanced on mountain tops, stretched out along mountain ridges andclogging valley exits. They were found hundreds and even a thousand miles from their source! They sometimes were literally miles long. In one case a town in England is built on one. To make matters alittle worse they often had rough edges suggesting that whatever awful force had moved them had done it quickly.
Another problem was that there were striations (serious scratch; marks) found on stones all around the world. What had caused the striations? The usual direction for the striations were from North or North West to South or South East. Why should there be a common direction of the striations around the world?
Then there were polished surfaces of rocks. The polished surfaces and the striations were often found closely connecting suggesting they had a common source.
The obvious solution to the naturalists was that moving water caused all of these features. But how could water be moving in the necessary way?
There was yet another geological feature called Till. But to explain this, I would rather quote, at the risk of some repetition, from the book "Cataclysm!" found at Seekerbooks (available in the late fall.) This is the book I recommend number one to resolve the larger geological issues relevant to this discussion of Atlantis. It is filled with science. Perhaps I will say more on it later. But I place it number one.
Here I give a long quote from scientific finds in Cataclysm:
"The Siberian finds increased naturalists' interest in thenumerous mammoth and woolly rhinoceros bones which had long been known from, and were indeed still being met with in, more southern European latitudes. These, it was quickly realised, generally occurred either in caves or rock fissures or in superficial surface deposits like sands, gravel, clays or marls. Usually unconsoldated (loosely held together), these deposits were also largely unstratified (unlayered)and often of very irregular linear extent and thickness, exhibiting every sign of having accumulated under agitated conditions which had apparently affected huge areas of the globe more or less simultaneously. Due to the exceptional nature of these surface deposits special names were coined to distinquish them, e.g. 'Boulder Clay', 'Hard Pan' and 'Till'. Researches showed that the lowest of these deposits, the 'Till', usually lay directly upon solid bedrock, the upper surfaceof which , irrespective of the kind of rock involved, had frequently been smashed, fissured, striated (marked with linear ridges, furrows, or scores), polished or pulverised into countless fragments. This phenomenon not only extended susrprising lateral and vertical distances, but had affected a great variety of extremely hard rocks.
To most naturalists at the time it was perfectly obvious that some tremendous even had occurred which, among other effects, had fractured hard rocks over immense distances, and had deposited the resultant debris equally extensively as gravels, sands, clays and muds. The bony remains of hordes of animals which had been destroyed by the event now lay within these deposits, which, in northern Siberia, had become permanently frozen. These interrelated remains thus represented the debris of a former but now-broken world.
Clearly any agency capable of venting so much devastation must have been not only awesomely powerful but must, from the evidence, have affected the entire world. ... On the other hand they were being confronted with mounting evidence that something traumatic, something catastrophic, had affected the whole Earth, geologically extremely recently.
Men were not long in concluding that this event had been the Deluge of Genesis and widespread tradition, and that perhaps the scriptural record and the accumulating geological record could, after all, be reconciled. Many books appeared on this theme during the first thirty years of the nineteenth century. ... Had a long-lost Golden Age been suddenly and disastrously terminated by a frightful global Flood? The growing evidence suggested to many that this may indeed have been the case, and efforts were redoubled to investigate these possibilities. ...
The first quarter of the nineteenth century, when geological science grew apace, saw much attention given to rock striations and polished rock surfaces, and to the vast number of boulders which, because they were usually foreign to the districts in which they reposed, were accordingly called 'erratics'.
The rock striations were generally found to be aligned north-west to south-east, both north and south of the equator. At many places either side of the Atlantic the striations occur only on the summits of high hills or only on the northern or north-western slopes of mountains. Locally, however, other striations cross the predominating examples at all sorts of angles or even at right-angles to their long axes. Such evidence suggest that whatever produced them proceeded from a general northern or north-western direction and totally ignored pre-existing topography.
At many localities these rock striations furrow extraordinarily smooth rock surfaces, in some instances exhibiting a glass-like polish. Such surfaces are of irregular extent, but occur with ornear striated rocks so frequently that little doubt exists that the striating and polishing of these surfaces had a common origin, both in cause and time.
Many of the 'erratic' boulders are of immense size and weight, the very largest being literally miles long. In some districts they abound in almost unbelievable numbers , perched precariously in long lines along mountain crests, or lie singly upon the very summits of lofty eminences. At other places they choke valleys and gorges or repose in splendid isolation on the surfaces of plains and deserts. Sometimes the boulders are visible in their entirety - elsewhere they are buried almost out of sight by surrounding surface deposits. 'Erratics' are often reported as sharply angular and "fresh-looking, rounded and polished, or as sometimes scored by "well-marked parallel striae", and in every case as having travelled considerable distances to their present locations - their points of origin often remaining obscure. Their angular and "fresh-looking" condition, however, suggest that their transportation was rapid and of sort; duration, a startling conclusion respecting the largest 'erratics'.
Like the rock striations mentioned above, these boulders were evidently dispersed by an agency operating oblivious to older geographical barriers and sometimes obliquely to the long axes of pre-existing ground features. Repeating associations of polished rock surfaces, striations, and erratics are known from many widely-sundered localities, such as Montana, Brazil, and Finland. Clearly these phenomena are different expressions of a singular event which occurred on a hemispheric scale.
The superficial sands and gravels which contain the bony remains of woolly rhinoceroses, mammoths and other large contemporary mammals, also lie unusually to adjacent local topographical features. They are often banked up against northern or north-western mountain or valley slopes only. At other places they mantle only the summits of high mountains, sometimes to depths of several thousand feet or meters. Elsewhere they bury the lower flanks of whole mountain ranges or even fill up entire valleys. They also frequently contain large quantities of geologically recent plant remains, at some places so profusely that, in company with coeval (same age) animal bones, they completely fill caves and rock fissures. Yet, even is such apparently chaotic evidence a curiously consistent theme emerges, for at many sites - around Muggendort in Germany for instance - only the caves and fissures facing northwards or north-westwards have been so filled.
Almost all early geologist attributed these clearly linked phenomena to the action of powerful water currents flowing in a general north-to south direction. The first scientific explanations purporting to account for these phenomena included vast river floods, 'waves of translation' generated by hypothetical giant submarine earthquakes, and the equator-wards drift of huge numbers of silt and stone-laden icebergs of northern origin, which deposited their stoney cargoes in warmer latitudes. These explanations invoked essentially catastrophic causes, and the irregular character of the relevant deposits, due to their supposed transportation by water or ice from one place to another -were soon widely referred to as "drift'. In turn the advocates of such explanations were grouped with those who, like Whiston, had long postulated, recurrent violent episodes in Earth history, and were regarded as 'Catastrophists'. pp 8-11
I might add here that the Till containing debris of earth, animal, and plant was yet more chaotically mixed than appears from this description from Cataclysm. The animals were found disarticulated (bones torn apart), prey mixed with predator, humans mixed in, bones splintered, tree trunks splintered, and creatures found together that are not found together in their natural habitat. Sometimes whales and sea creatures mixed in what should have stayed in the sea. Wild chaos in short and sudden rampaging disaster.
Now I have a question for the list. Suppose you were trying to contribute to a new emerging field called geology around 1830. Suppose you understood that the matters above demanded an explanation. How would you feel about the solution "God did it"?
It happens that in 1930 Charles Lyell published "Principles of Uniformity". It took a view opposed to the Catastrophists. It strongly asserted that all of geology was to be explained by constant principles of nature working relatively smoothly. It was very persuasive and won the day. It became the view of "uniformitarianism". By a handful of years later the idea was beginning that, in keeping with Lyell's principles, there had been enormous glaciers and they were the explanation for the erratics, striations, polished surfaces and till.
In 1840 Agassiz made this view formal. And it stuck.
Still today the orthodox view of science is gradualism. Uniformitarianism - with glaciers added - has held sway for some 170 years. It no longer necessary to say "God did it". Geologists no longer make comparisons to the Noachian Flood. Normalcy and sensibility rule the day in geology.
However, today we have much more geological data available to study. All this raises a question. Exactly how is the glacier "theory" doing today to explain these odd features of geology? Maybe we should revisit the issue.
We need to focus for a moment on the date of the sinking of Atlantis.
In the Secret Doctrine HPB gives the date as 12,000 years ago.
Often Plato is taken as asserting a date of 9,600 BC. That could be looked at a little more carefully. Collins, mentioned earlier, calculates a date from the Critias and the Timeaus of Plato of either 9570 or post 8570.
In a more obscure source Theosophy gives a precise date of 9,565 BC. As far as I know this is the only precise date given from any source. More on this particular date later.
Altogether we should use the round number of 12,000 years ago or 10,000 BC because I will be dealing with various dates from science that are not much more precise than that.
The big question: Does science say anything happened in 10,000BC.
Definitely yes, one fact leaps out. That is when science says the Pleistocene epoch ended!
Science defines the Pleistocene as roughly the ice-age. It is asserted to have lasted some 2 million years and ended in relatively recent times about 10,000 BC.
So my first question is this. Is it a coincidence that the pleistocene ended its 2,000,000 years duration just as Atlantis was claimed by both HPB and Plato to have sunk? Could there be a connection?
Now lets look at orogeny - the science of mountain building. Apparently this is not generally known outside of orogeny circles but ... The Himalayas are young mountains. They are said to have arisen toward the end of the Pleistocene. The alps hardly show much erosion. They are said to have gained most of their height around the end of the Pleistocene. The Rocky Mountains are obviously new. They are said to have risen during the end of the Pleistocene. The Andes are a new chain. Very fresh young rocks. Yes - they are said to have arisen at the end of the Pleistocene. The mountains about Kabul in Afghanistan rose at the end of the Pleistocene. The same goes for more mountains as well.
Science does not know why all these mountains went up at this time.
What does that make people think?? Do people know this?
Next very simple question - if all that earth went up then wouldn't it be reasonable for something to go "down"? Any thoughts?
There is another oddity that occurred at the end of the Pleistocene in the field of biology. During the Pleistocene we lost hundreds (two?) of the large animal species - hairy mammoth, wooly rhinoceros, sabre-tooth tiger etc. But here is the odd part. Some 75 percent of those species lost during the pleistocene were lost during the last 800 years or so of the Pleistocene.
Science does not know why this happened.
Anything to do with the mountains? Anything to do with Atlantis?
It was not only mountains. At one time the population of the American Indian dropped to almost zero. That was around 10,000 BC. Could it be related? No one knows why.
There is a curious item from archaeology. The paleolithic period (old stone) was followed by the mesolithic (middle stone), which was followed by the neolithic (new stone) which was followed by the bronze age, iron age and onward. Paleolithic used crude stone implements. Mesolithic and neolithic civilization introduced weaving, pottery, domesticated animals and agriculture with details depending upon the scholar.
As I read it, everywhere the transition from age to age was smooth. The durations of the different ages differed in different locations.
But there was one exception. The transition from paleolithic to mesolithic was abrupt. And it was abrupt everywhere. No one knows why. But there was a greater oddity - that transition occurred at the same time everywhere! Well you can guess when - at 10,000BC.
Cromagnon man provides one last mystery. Cromagnon man invaded Spain, France and Northern Africa from some unknown source. No one knows from where. Those invasions are thought to have started around 38,000 BC. The last such invasion was called the Azillian Man. It was vastly different from the prior civilizations of cromagnon man. It left only a relatively very thin strata for the archaeologists. Here is the point of note - when did this group from some unknown source, seemingly from the Atlantic, arrive for the last time? Why in 10,000 BC.
So Brian - and anyone else - what are we to think of this? What should a reasonable person think?
Probably most people on this list hold the view that Edgar Cayce said Bimini was the location of Atlantis. I think many people also are of the opinion he even specified that in 1968 or 1969 it would be found rising there. Actually this needs to be reviewed. But first some research info. It appears that just as in the case of Cuba, there is some "people info" that is relevant here as well.
There was a book published in 2001 by ARE. It is "Edgar Cayce's Atlantis and Lemuria" by Frank Joseph. It was distributed to ARE's sponsors as "benefit". The book is highly supportive of the Bimini area. However, it appears to me (and others) that the book is misleading and even wrong. I suggest it be avoided.
Two years later, in 2003, ARE published "The ARE's Search for Atlantis" subtitled "The Ongoing Search for Edgar Cayce's Atlantis in the Bahamas" by Gregory and Lora Little. This is an excellent book and I am grateful to ARE for publishing it. It presents realistic research by the two authors from both air and underwater in an open minded search to confirm or refutethe many "sightings" and issues surrounding Bimini. Those two authors have other close connects to ARE as indicated in the book. Taken as a whole it appears to nullify the significance of the mysteries surrounding Bimini. I recommend this book highly for those wanting to pursue the issue of Atlantis at Bimini. It can be found at Seekerbooks (we will be adding the bookstore in the fall 2014)
Here are the finds published in the ARE book:
1. There is a picture that appeared in newspapers showing an apparent rectangular temple on the shallow ocean bottom. However it is not a temple. It is as some had claimed - a sponge pen built by the locals. And there are many of them. The locals build a pen to hold their sponges. The pen is made by ramming sticks into the ground underwater, tying them together with rope, and supporting them with stones. The temple floor plan seen in many places is only a structure made by the locals in the last century. The famous newspaper picture of it, if examined closely, shows some of the individual sticks. Why wasn't this seen??
2. The are mysterious large near perfect circles in the water that would seem to be man-made - possibly ancient. They are natural. In an odd but known way (known to the locals) they are made by fish swimming in circles. Seems odd but true. They were checked out in the water and there was no rock or whatever under the circular waves of dirt.
3. There is an alleged "upright stone pillar" at the southwestern end of the island. However it is little more than a 4-to 6 ft tall sponge. It probably appeared as a pillar on a side-scan sonar record.
4. Moselle Shoals was said to have "colossal square columns". These are just non-rectilinear granite chunks partially on top of modern steel ship and engine parts - certainly modern.
5. The odd formations seen on the surrounding ocean floor are all the result of natural growths of seagrass showing clearly against the ocean bottom.
6. Concerning the "road": There was a study conducted in 1979 and 1980 on two areas of the beachrock formation by Marshall McKusick and Eugene Shinn. [McKusick, M and E. Shinn, 1980, Bahamian Atlantis Reconsidered, Nature, v. 287, no. 5777, p. 11.] These scientists took 17 oriented cores of the limestone boulders and examined them with X-radiographs. The cores from both areas showed "slope and uniform particle size, bedding planes, and constant dip direction from one block to the next. If the stones had been quarried and re-laid there is no reason to suppose bedding planes would carry stratigraphically from block to block. The sedimentary laminations clearly show that these were not randomly laid stones but a natural, relatively undisturbed formation." In other words there is strong evidence that the stones were created in place in-situ by nature.
To be fair it should be noted that the explorer/authors of the book also found a new underwater platform on one of the shallow underwater banks. It is clearly manmade. It is interesting. But it is not clear that much will come of it.
If I had read these negations from some other source I would have been skeptical of their accuracy. However, coming from ARE I find them believable.
So is there any reason why Edgar Cayce's prediction is doing so poorly on the Bimini prediction when he has a clear high batting average in other cases?
Apparently yes. There is difference of opinion within ARE as to how Cayce's readings should be interpreted relative to Bimini. It turns out that Edgar Cayce's readings must be parsed very carefully, at least in the case of Atlantis - just as we sometimes must analyze very carefully various statements of HPB.(Helena P. Blavatsky)
There are several of these statements to be considered carefully. This parsing can go into more detail than may be appropriate for this list. Parsing HPB is enough of a challenge. But here is one example from Reading 996-12 that is short:
Client: Is this [the Biminni area ] the continent known as Alta or Poseidia?
Cayce: A temple of the Poseidians was in a portion of this land.
Now did Cayce say "yes" or "no". Maybe if you read it fast he said "yes". But I (and others) think that if you read it carefully, then he said "no". Try reading it with emphasis like this: A TEMPLE of the Poseidians was in a portion of this land. As though he were explaining patiently that it was only a TEMPLE that was there, not the whole island of Poseidonis itself.
The view of one faction within ARE says:
1. "No reading specifically identifies Bimini with Poseidia".
2. "No reading predicts an underwater road to be found near Bimini and no year.
From checking the readings myself, it appears to me more likely that this faction is correct.
I might note in passing his comment on the year of discovery. It occurred in Reading 958-3 and reads like this: "And Poseidia will be among the first portions of Atlantis to rise again. Expect it in sixty-eight and sixty-nine ('68 and '69); not so far away!".
I have also an apparent year of its sinking given by Cayce as just a little after 10,000 BC. This is of course in complete accord with Theosophy. And both match the science I will presenting.
Now it is on to the geological problem for those who place Atlantis in the mid Atlantic.
I think people ought not to blithely say they think Atlantis was in the middle of the Atlantic without understanding what this implies.
To get a handle on this we need to look at the size of Atlantis. As I mentioned much earlier, Plato in his dialogue uses two different words in Greek - one meaning "continent" and the other meaning "island". Indeed in his text he describes two distinctly different sizes.
In one case he says "larger than Libya and Asia combined." Now what did these terms mean to Plato? Libya meant the northern coast of Africa from Morocco to current day Libya. About the size of Europe. Asia did not mean what we refer to as Asia today. It was an area starting at Egypt and moving westwards. I forget the exact limit of it. I seem to recall something like the Ural Mountains. But is thought to be the size of North America.
Now if you combine these two together it is a question whether they are a little bit too big to fit into the North Atlantic. Accordingly most Atlantologists add the word "minor" in front of "Asia"so the reference is only to "asia minor". Then that section of land would extend from Egypt to mid-Turkey. This is a continental size landmass.
Plato also refers to a main plain of the island that is 2,000 by 3,000 stadia. That plain extends down to the water and is surrounded by mountains. Now the exact size of a "stadia" is disputed. However an approximate size is 200 meters or 600 feet. This about 230 miles by 345 miles. That is a large plain. It is almost the size of Spain. If you put mountains around it and maybe just a little other land then it comes to the size of the Iberian peninsula of Spain and Portugal.
So we distinctly have very different sizes indicated within Plato'sdialogues.
Here are some of HPB's statements on the size of Atlantis:
"But as no Initiate had the right to divulge and declare all he knew, posterity got only hints. Aiming more to instruct as a moralist than as a geographer and ethnologist or historian, the Greek philosopher merged the history of Atlantis, which covered several million years, into one event which he located on one comparatively small island 3000 stadia long by 2000 wide; (or about 350 miles by 200, which is about the size of Ireland), whereas the priests spoke of Atlantis as a continent vast as "all Asia and Lybia" put together. But, however altered in its general aspect, Plato'snarrative bears the impress of truth upon it." (SDii405
"That not only the last island of Atlantis, spoken of by Plato, but a large continent, first divided, and then broken later on into seven peninsulas and islands (called dwipas), preceded Europe, is sure. It covered the whole of the North and South Atlantic regions, as well as portions of the North and South Pacific, and had islands even in the Indian Ocean (relics of Lemuria)."
"And they may then perceive that Plato's guarded hints and his attributing the narrative to Solon and the Egyptian priests, were but a prudent way of imparting the fact to the world, and, by cleverly combining truth and fiction, so disconnecting himself from a story which the obligations imposed at initiation forbade him to divulge." SDii405
I may add that Atlantologists sometimes adopt another clever way around these disparate land sizes. They say that the larger size is the area that Atlantis CONTROLLED - as apposed to being the actualland mass. People will have to choose between this explanation and HPB's or who knows whatever other view.
For the purpose of these emails I am mostly focusing on the small island of Poseidonis and taking it to be about the size of the Iberian peninsula.
Now to the geological issue. Can you imagine the Iberian Peninsula sinking below the waves in a day and a night?
Naturally that just does not happen according the standard geological view !! That would violate all the known experience of Geology. Of course Geology looks with scorn upon this proposal when we see how big Plato's "island" was - even in its small size.
Then we need to note that the land in question is very deep. That makes it even less likely according to the Geologist. The Geologist says that if the Atlantean ridge was above water, then it was so long ago that mankind had not yet come into existence!
Yet it certainly would make much sense otherwise if Atlantis was in the Atlantic and about where we have started talking - near the Azores.
In sum - I think people ought to understand that Geologists are being quite consistent with their world view when they dismiss this view of Atlantis. Just that they are wrong. Perhaps we should lookat some coincidences that have arisen with regard to their worldview.
HPB of course does have some very definite statements on Atlantis. I will be getting to those. In my opinion, though, there is much material that should be covered to do HPB the justice she deserves on this subject. I would like her to receive that justice. So as part of working up to her view, I will be first answering your questions as you framed them.
You asked about the Carribean as a site for Atlantis.
Background: Fidel Castro was attempting to raise funds by looking for shipwrecks with treasure aboard that are within his territorial waters. He hired the high tech company of Advanced Digital Communications (ADC). Paulina Zelitsky is associated with that company.
On May 14, 2001 Reuters reported about her companies discovery off Cuba:
"Most intriguingly, researchers using sonar equipment have discovered, at a depth of about 2,200 feet, a huge land plateau with clear images of what appears to be urban development partly covered by sand. From above, the shapes resemble pyramids, roads and buildings."
This of course is exciting sounding material. I was looking forward to a significant find. Even though HPB (Blavatsky) asserts Atlantis was in the mid Atlantic - it could still have outposts at Cuba.
The Reuters release further said:
''It is stunning. What we see in our high-resolution sonar images are limitless, rolling, white sand plains and, in the middle of this beautiful white sand, there are clear manmade large-size architectural designs. It looks like when you fly over an urban development in a plane and you see highways, tunnels and buildings,'' Zelitsky said.
''We don't know what it is and we don't have the videotaped evidence of this yet, but we do not believe that nature is capable of producing planned symmetrical architecture, unless it is a miracle,'' she added in an interview at her office at Tarara, along the coast east of Havana.
This became extra interesting because Andrew Collins had recently written an excellent book that deeply researched old documents to find traces of knowledge of the western hemisphere in the old world. This led him to be the first to predict Cuba as the location of Atlantis. So the Cuba find of Zelitsky directed the spotlight of attention to his book "Gateway to Atlantis"
It has been more than three years now and I have not heard any further positive result. Maybe others have. But there is a negative result. There is another book "The A.R.E.'s Search for Atlantis" by Gregory and Lora Little. It is an excellent book and I expect to say more about it later. In that book are two quotes: "Sonar images can be very misleading, and wrecks and debris can be mistaken for structures." (p 60). Zelitsky had been using Sonar. And "In other cases, the sonar picture is far more geometrical than the anomalies appear to a diver." (p62)
What we discover is that Zelitsky subsequently took video of the site to supplement her sonar data. She then showed that video to Collins. Now if that Little book is read it becomes clear that it properly reflects the views of Collins. Collins wrote the introduction for it. That book also says "Initially, ADC utilized side-scanning sonar to discover the "ruins," but later they sent a small remote camera into the fast-moving, murky water. After viewing the video footage ADC sent him, Collins was unconvinced that the stone features discovered by ADC were actual ruins. To this writing, [book published in 2003] no new information has been released by ADC, and the world awaits the eventual outcome."
So here is the rub. Collins has much to gain if the Cuba site is verified. However when shown the video he was "unconvinced". So now more than 3 years later I am skeptical of the bold original claims.
There are also some theoretical problems with the Cuban theory. Cuba is not under the sea. Part of the alledged plain described by Plato in the dialogues as pointed to by Collins is indeed underwater. But other parts of alledged Posoidonis are above water. That is not so suitable for an island that Plato says sank "in a day and a night".
Here is a key passage from Plato:
"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent."
A shocking note here is Plato's reference to "a boundless continent". There is wide agreement that the reference is to the Western Hemisphere. But isn't that startling that Plato should know about that? (It would not be shocking according to some of HPB's statements.)
Also note that Plato is quite aware here of the distinction between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. That decreases the viability of the arguments of Galanopoulos.
And finally this passage reflects negatively on the arguments of Collins. He makes much in his book of the greater and lesser Antilles. But in his case of Cuba those islands lead TO his proposed Atlantis and not FROM it as Plato mentions.
So, Brian, grand conclusion: Likely nothing Atlantean has been found in Cuba. I'll keep an open mind though. And the details of Collins' argument, while very well done, don't satisfy all the requirements.