I really don't see how you can possibly claim this, arbitarily projecting his proportional model onto celestial North doesn't make anything clearer...quite the oppositie.
If this was the case then his allegory relates to the constellation Hercules [please note, not based upon his celestial spheres model which is a different entity] which in terms of precession [which he demonstrated knowledge of with the outer spheres of his model] approaches...please note... from the west. The islands would then be other stars and the surrounding continent the milky way. The dating he gives would be consistent with flooding at Sunderland which is reinforced by the fact that this occurred before or beyond the Pillars of Hercules of the constellation in the the polar position. Some traditions such as the Chinese have the heavens supported by pillars
Quite apart from the problems we have discussed regarding lack of known capability and stated intent for doing such, comparing continents with the Milky Way and islands with stars just seems another entirely unevidenced and far fetched consideration.
... ’The pillars of heaven were broken; the Earth was shaken to its very foundations; the heavens sunk lower to the north; the Sun, Moon and stars changed their motions; the Earth fell to pieces, and the waters enclosed within its bosom burst forth with violence and overflowed it’....
There are traditions of four pillars supporting the Heavens but i don't think those are directly comparable to the Pillars of Hercules.
Hence' Pillars of Hercules' could feasibly be a reference to the constellation as the pillars of heaven, albeit here before they were forming the supports for heaven as the dating was for 9000 years before the time of Plato and Hercules was in the pole position later than than that, Tau Hercules was closest to the pole at 7600BC. Hence we now have a description of a flood before the Pillars of Hercules became the heavenly supports. The flood dated by Plato was before the pillars of Hercules or the time of Hercules in support position at the pole and in this context that would be an accurate description. Plato's stars and planets were attached by chains, or bonds or ties [dependent upon translation] to the universal axis which means a connection to the celestial pole.
The constellation of the kneeler of Hercules has never had any association with Pillars or gates of Heaven, there are two gates and associated sets of pillars known from ancient Sumerian times, but nowhere near Hercules, which due to it's location was never going to have such function.
ultimately our differences regarding the possible source of Atlantis boil down to the possibility I suggest being accepted or rejected. You reject it, with your rejection based upon conventional learning while I maintain it is possibility as the analysis does fit what Plato describes in detail.
Only in the sense that you have used Platos measurements is there any association, but you haven't properly demonstrated any justification or plausibility for doing so...anyone can project his measurements anywhere and say they appear to fit with anything.
Simple as that, accept or reject as a possibility. I have presented the evidence for and the against is valid only if Plato could not possibly have utilised traditional concepts from other regions, ideas which by his time would have been familiar to learned people across the developed areas. SO if you can prove that it is impossible for Plato to have used a model based upon knowledge from other regions then you win. Please note that I stated 'prove it is impossible for Plato to have used knowledge from other regions'. Because if this cannot be proven then my suggestion remains a distinct possibility. My analysis covers all the relevant descriptions of the Atlantis picture contained in the Atlantis narrative. The conventional model does not...unless it is admitted that this all a dream by Plato...but how can anyone prove what he may or may not have imagined?
There isn't even any knowledge from any other region that could have projected Platos model around celestial North with any accuracy, or that was aware of precession...
Hence as it cannot be proven that Plato could not have utilised information and concepts derived from other regions my analysis remains a possibility. The strength of that possibility is then dependent upon nothing more than opinion
There's nothing to suggest such knowledge was available or utilised...if there had been he'd have been sure to mention this.
So I reiterate my earlier statements in that neither of us can prove the case. I cannot prove it correct and you cannot prove it incorrect. It is a matter of opinion which is the greater possibility and as my model actually does give answers that cover the full Atlantis description I think that mine actually is more plausible than the conventional. It is a story of a flood and that story is told in other cultures in a fashion that is very similar to Plato's description as I have clearly described in earlier chapters of the book.
But of course, acceptance or otherwise is down to individual preference.
As is well understood there's no point trying to disprove negatives with no objective basis, i'll stick with probabilities not possibilities...