In 2000 my Web page on Atlantis was established, and since then it has developed to an internationally known and practically the only Web page about a historical-critical approach for the interpretation of Plato's Atlantis. Even established academic Atlantis skeptics recommend my page and my newsletter in their publications, e.g. Dr Stephen P. Kershaw (Oxford) or Prof. Heinz-Günter Nesselrath (Göttingen), although they do not share my basic hypothesis at all: This means something.
In 2006 I started to publish my ideas about Atlantis in scientifically substantiated books. These books found attention not only with Atlantis supporters but are read also by established academic Atlantis skeptics, who mention them in their publications as worth reading, although they do not share my basic hypothesis at all. Among them e.g. Prof. Heinz-Günter Nesselrath, Prof. Malcolm Heath, or Dr Stephen P. Kershaw.
For each book I care for Addenda and Corrigenda. For some of the books, improved second editions have been published. Partially, English translations habe been produced which clearly improved the awarness of my hypotheses. Unfortunately, I have not found a "real" editor for my books. Academic editors do not like Atlantis books, if Atlantis is not depicted as invention. Publishers of popular books do not like my books because they are too academic and not made for the broader public. Therefore, my books are self-edited at Books-on-Demand. This is way better than having them edited by a shady editor.
With three submissions of which I could present one before the conference's audience, I was participant at the Atlantis Conference 2008 in Athens/Greece. It was one of three Atlantis conferences which had been organized by Greek scientis in 2005/08/11. From stubborn Atlantis skeptics to "cranks" the whole spectrum of hypothese had been present. Yet except verbal endorsements and double applause no tangible support could be gained, there. On the other hand, this conference helped me a lot to improve the awareness for my hypotheses. And I presented there for the first time my (yet incomplete) Sicily hypothesis. My submissions are printed in the conference's proceedings:
Two years later I had to slightly revise my Italos hypothesis in order to maintain it. But such learning effects and self-corrections are also a success under the perspective of science.
A clear change of mind of established academic Atlantis skeptics could be effected by my argument that a certain Atlantis skeptic word in Strabo's works is not from Aristotle, as had been generally thought until then. Partially, scientists simply dropped the thesis. Partially, scientists tried to save the thesis by an over-complicated and over-twisted argument. Partially, the cause for the change of mind was left unmentioned. Partially, it was openly recognized that I successfully undermined the old opinion, and the search for alternative authors started, if Aristotle was not the author. Such changes of mind can be found e.g. here:
Of course I repeatedly tried to achieve some publication of my hypotheses in academic journals, or reviews for my books. Yet I failed completely. – Nevertheless, the way I failed is very telling about the established academic Atlantis skepticism. Partially I had been brushed off with ludicrous excuses. I documented them. Considering what science and academia should be, this is a kind of success, too, though sounding very paradoxical.