Atlantis in the Caribbean: And the Comet That Changed the World

I found this book to be an excellent update on the subject of discovering the historical reality underlying Plato's tales of Atlantis. The author discusses extensively the evidence for pre-Platonic contact between the mariners of the Mediterranean and the Western Hemisphere. Likewise, he examines carefully the religions and stories of Mesoamerican cultures relating to contact with travelers from Caribbean islands. Considering also the known histories of indigenous Caribbean and Bahamian peoples discovered by the Spanish explorers, there is much evidence presented that the location of legendary Atlantis lies somewhere in the Greater Antilles or Bahama Bank, rather than in the Mediterranean.Dismissed as less likely locations for the fabled city and culture are the mid-Atlantic Azores and the recently discovered piles of stone in the Yucatan Channel west of Cuba--mostly because of the depth of the surrounding seabeds. For this and other reasons, the author clearly favors western Cuba, including the area now under water between the main island and the Isle of Youth/Pines, as the most likely locus of ancient Atlantis.To be honest, I would have liked to see more discussion of the possible connection between Atlantis and such Mediterranean cultures as Minoan Crete, Egypt and Mycenian Greece. There is essentially no discussion of Plato's assertion of a major war between Atlantis and Athens. How could a culture that suffered a serious catastrophe in 10,600 BCE (or even its remnants) have posed an existential threat to a culture that is not likely older than 2000 BCE. Perhaps a clue can be found in the fresco of a Minoan "prince," whose appearance, especially his headdress, strongly suggests that of Mayan king. A naval clash between Minoan and Athenian armadas, perhaps over trading rights, does not seem outside the realm of possibility. (The naval war between England and the Netherlands in the 17th century CE comes to mind as a parallel.) Note that I'm not suggesting that either Crete or Thera were Atlantis, but only that they may have had some cultural inheritance from that possibly antediluvian polity, including an orientation toward long-distance seafaring.

Excellent book. This is actually a revised update of Collin's earlier book, "Gateway To Atlantis", which I found totally engrossing several years ago. The update incorporates a lot of data from the late German scientist Otto Muck's ("The Secret Of Atlantis") research into the crashing of a huge comet or breaking-up planetoid into the earth's atmosphere 12,000 years ago (leaving the remarkable, elliptical Carolina Bay" formations along the SE U.S. coast) and catastrophically blasting the geological Atlantis to smithereens as well as rising havoc with the sea levels all around the world (and inspiring all the world-wide Universal Flood legends). Collins focuses on the Caribbean area but I have to think you cannot rule out the Amphere seamount locations as well (the Azores and Canary Islands BEG to be included in Atlantology). Collins demolishes the hokum of the "Bimini Road" area being "natural beach rock" as well and points to similar breakwater structures in the Mediterranean long pre-dating the Romans. This book is a SERIOUS antidote to the rear-guard "save the Mediterranean" paradigm as an Atlantean "explanation" (the old Thera/Santorini humbug) whereby writers like Gavin Menzies and others bend over backwards and sideways to try and "transform" the MINOANS into the "real" Atlanteans (which requires you to believe the ancient Egyptians were idiots and couldn't tell east from west or that they were CLUELESS that the Med opened into a larger outer sea). I'd find this insulting if I were an ancient Egyptian. I would also ask....pointedly....if the Atlanteans were based on the Minoans Mispercieved, why was no Minoan mythology incorporated into the Atlantean "myths". Mythology is ASSIMILATED; the Biblical Noah stories go back earlier to Sumerians and such. Why, then, is Minos not named a king of Atlantis? Why no sacrificing of captive youths to the Minotaur? Why isn't the killing of the Minotaur by Theseus not included in Atlantis mythology? I would suggest because the ancient Mediterraneans knew full well that the so-called "Minoans" and the Atlanteans were two different things altogether. That's my two cents, but Collins does a damn good job of reconstructing the past on his own. Recommended.

A cogent argument for the Caribbean area.Certainly to have been at least part of the Atlantean empire of the Atlantic.He describes some good discoveries and the old legends and writings he brings up point in that direction.Well worth adding to your collection of Atlantis lore.

Besides "Ashes of the Angels" this is my favorite Collins book. I also learned about a creature I didn't know. I've always wondered what "the Globster" was.

The author, in my personal opinion, reaches conclusion that use facts that are over broad and tortured to fit his pre conceived conclusions. It would be better served to take a step back and try to integrate all of the facts without pushing an end game.

Excellent book,but it's length was a great challenge. Even 1/2 of the book could have been able to make a great read.

While I don’t agree with everything, this book conclusively proves Atlantis was in this area. It’s my personal opinion that it was heavily exaggerated by the Phoenicians. However, using Plato’s details, the Bahamas and surrounding Caribbean are without a doubt the area being described. Andrew even points out the contradictions in the official story.

Like this book read it on a cruise quite fact filled and entertaining

Ich persönlich mag die Ausflüge in die wissenschaftlich verpönte Welt der Atlantisforschung sehr. Wenn nur der Spinner Cayce nicht erwähnt werden würde, wäre das Buch ein echt interessanter Ansatz. Leider ist das nur eine erneuerte Auflage von Gateway to Atlantis von 2000. Der neue Titel hat mich da in die Irre geführt.

Halfway through so far, and rarely for me, I have had to stop. This is because, there are simply historical untruths in the book! I know for a book of this nature that is to be expected, but I started this, believing I would be drawn in, yet I am not.Scarce bits of evidence are treated as though enormous blocks of proof. Other historical events are twisted or presented as truth when not, in my opinion. Maybe I will return to it to see how it concludes. I just know I won't buy any of his books again!