So, a while back KotA said some kinda strange stuff that seemed like he was trying to leave wiggle room to declare Atlantis doesn't have to be Atlantis at all for this to count, just... Atlant-ish.
I asked him to clarify his position a few times but he didn't reply to that part of my posts (and now he's not replying to any part of them). I normally would assume that all this talk about geological "evidence" for Plato being correct means he's sticking to a literal Atlantis, but with KotA I am not 100%.
Honestly I wish he would state his whole theory in a clear and concise way because that's never been done in the 900+ posts in this thread. He's referred to other sources, he has picked one aspect and gone off on tangents, but what I really want is something like this:
"The lost city of Atlantis is real, and was located on the coast of Spain. Survivors and descendants of the Atlanteans carved symbols on rocks to remember their lost empire by, and some wandering Jews later saw those carvings and, even though they didn't know what Atlantis was, decided they just liked the carvings so much they would adopt a highly altered version as a design for a lamp."
I mean, I think that's what he's saying but I genuinely can't be certain. I suspect if he were to read that he would declare at least one part of it wrong.