One SlimVirgin question answered, while two more emerge in its place. Options

[WordBomb]

There's been a bit of speculation as to the nature of the long-deleted Slimv account.

As I mentioned last week, I have several database dumps, which I've been painstakingly reviewing in search of insights on this and the many other odd deletions made by Musical Linguist in early June of 2006.

Trust me when I say: there is some wild stuff in there.

Wild.

The main SlimVirgin content you'll have to wait for, but Slimv I shall share with you now.

It would appear that Slimv made a single edit in her career, logged November 5, 2004 to the article on Mordacai Vanunu, the guy who revealed the existence of Israel's nuclear weapons program in the mid-80s.

When Vanunu squealed, he was smart enough to do so from England, but that didn't stop the Mossad from capturing and imprisoning him in Israel for 18 years.

Slimv's contribution to the article provided some very unique insights into the role Sunday Mirror owner Robert Maxwell might have had in revealing Vanunu's treason.

Though it's been deleted, you can still see the substance of Slimv's addition by looking at the diffs that previously surrounded it.

When you do, ignore every thing above Line 15, as this is the edit that followed Slimv's. The changes you see below Line 15 were made by Slimv.

Remember, Musical Linguist said that deletion was a result of personally identifying information included in the edit. Either that's the case, or it's not. If it is: whoa. If it's not: whoa.

It's also worth noting that Musical Linguist deleted at least one edit from the Robert Maxwell article at the same time she was deleting the Vanunu edit and Slimv's user page.

One more thing.

Six days after Slimv made her one and only edit, followed a few hours later by SlimVirgin's inaugural contribution, two things happened: Mordacai Vanunu was re-arrested, and Yasser Arafat assumed room temperature. That was a busy week for Israeli intelligence.

This post has been edited by WordBomb:

[WordBomb]

I've reconstructed the oversighted Slimv edits to Pan Am Flight 103.

As Daniel Brandt predicted, there were indeed several non-barking dogs to be found.

Because these edits would be impossible to adequately reconstruct in a post like this, I've put them in the traditional "compare differences" format and uploaded them here.

By the way, the only links that remain are those that move you between the five diffs.

You'll also note that the first and fifth are at first glance the most significant.

[LamontStormstar]

I've reconstructed the oversighted Slimv edits to Pan Am Flight 103.

As Daniel Brandt predicted, there were indeed several non-barking dogs to be found.

Because these edits would be impossible to adequately reconstruct in a post like this, I've put them in the traditional "compare differences" format and uploaded them here.

By the way, the only links that remain are those that move you between the five diffs.

You'll also note that the first and fifth are at first glance the most significant.

What is your analysis of this? What was she trying to cover up? What false ideas was she planting?

[anthony]

I've reconstructed the oversighted Slimv edits to Pan Am Flight 103.

As Daniel Brandt predicted, there were indeed several non-barking dogs to be found.

Because these edits would be impossible to adequately reconstruct in a post like this, I've put them in the traditional "compare differences" format and uploaded them here.

By the way, the only links that remain are those that move you between the five diffs.

You'll also note that the first and fifth are at first glance the most significant.

What is your analysis of this? What was she trying to cover up? What false ideas was she planting?

I'm not sure about what is a false idea, but some edits that struck me:

"Privately, some CIA officers who worked on the investigation believe that the PFLP-GC planned the attack, but that it was handed over to Libyan intelligence after October 1988, because the German arrests meant the PFLP-GC was unable to complete the operation. Others believe there were parallel operations intended to ensure that at least one would succeed."

Claims inside knowledge of "private" CIA officer theories.

In a later edit she names names:
"Vincent Cannistraro, who worked on the investigation, has told reporters he believes the PFLP-GC planned the attack at the behest of Iran, then subcontracted it to Libyan intelligence after October 1988, because the German arrests meant the PFLP-GC was unable to complete the operation. Other investigators believe that whoever paid for the bombing arranged two parallel operations intended to ensure that at least one would succeed."

This actually points more toward her being a "reporter who interviewed CIA" than "CIA agent".

"Many Lockerbie-watchers found it revealing that the Americans began to shift blame to Libya only after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990. America needed Syrian support for the [1991]] [[Gulf War]], the theory goes, and therefore did not want to blame a Syrian-based Palestinian terrorist group. For this reason, it is alleged, Colonel Gadaffi became a useful patsy. This theory is naive in two respects. First, although America blamed Libya publicly for the bombing for the first time after August 1990, insiders knew from around October 1989 that the focus of the investigation had turned to Libya. Secondly, it would not necessarily have harmed Syria had a Damascus-based terrorist group been held responsible. These Palestinian groups are based in Syria only in the sense of having their headquarters and press offices there. There is no evidence or suggestion that the Syrian government would have approved of an attack against the United States in response to the American attacks on Libya or Iran."

Attacks a strawman suggesting that Libya was a scapegoat pushed by "Americans" (really the US government).

Changes "The blast tore a large hole in the fuselage and cabin floor" into "The blast tore a small hole in the fuselage and cabin floor". This change goes along with her edit warring to use the term "catastrophic systems failure". One possible significance to this is where she adds:

"For several years, investigators wondered whether an insider had steered the bomb into that precise location in the forward cargo hold, because an explosion that size anywhere else on the plane, and possibly even anywhere else in that hold, would not have triggered a systems failure, and the plane might have limped to safety. In the end, investigators concluded there was no way the terrorists could have placed the bomb so precisely, and that it was merely a matter of dreadful luck for those on board that the suitcase containing the bomb ended up where it did."

Also later she adds "Other passenger jets have managed to limp to safety after similar explosions." She removes at this time "The 243 passengers and 16 crew members were killed almost instantaneously" which would be somewhat inconsistent with a small blast. In fact she adds later about how a couple passengers actually survive the fall and die shortly after im

Another strawman argument she provides and claims there is no evidence for: "Another conspiracy theory suggests that the bombing was carried out by a group of rogue [[CIA]] agents trying to cover up their involvement with a Syrian drug-smuggling operation; or that they turned a blind eye to the Libyan or Palestinian terrorists who had planted the bomb because the agents wanted to kill CIA officers who were passengers on PA 103. [....] No evidence of any kind has been put forward to support these claims."

I'll let someone else go through this now. There's a lot to digest.

[Daniel Brandt]

"Many Lockerbie-watchers found it revealing that the Americans began to shift blame to Libya only after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990. America needed Syrian support for the [1991]] [[Gulf War]], the theory goes, and therefore did not want to blame a Syrian-based Palestinian terrorist group. For this reason, it is alleged, Colonel Gadaffi became a useful patsy. This theory is naive in two respects. First, although America blamed Libya publicly for the bombing for the first time after August 1990, insiders knew from around October 1989 that the focus of the investigation had turned to Libya. Secondly, it would not necessarily have harmed Syria had a Damascus-based terrorist group been held responsible. These Palestinian groups are based in Syria only in the sense of having their headquarters and press offices there. There is no evidence or suggestion that the Syrian government would have approved of an attack against the United States in response to the American attacks on Libya or Iran."

This is the first I've heard that "insiders knew from around October 1989 that the focus of the investigation had turned to Libya." This provides more support for John K. Cooley's statement: "Once the two Libyan suspects were indicted, she seemed to try to point the investigation in the direction of Qaddafi, although there was plenty of evidence, both before and after the trials of Maghrebi and Fhima in the Netherlands, that others were involved, probably with Iran the commissioning power."

Additional support for Cooley's statement was found in the book by Susan and Daniel Cohen, mentioned in another thread. They stated that Linda Mack took the lead in a petition drive to suppress the Allan Francovich film.

Mack calls this theory "naive." In fact, it's not considered "naive" by anything I've read about Lockerbie. No wonder Mack had second thoughts about posting something like this. By now everyone would be pointing to it and wondering, "Who told her to say this on Wikipedia?" "How would a Wikipedia editor by the name of 'SlimVirgin' know anything about what 'insiders' knew in October 1989, concerning a topic that was not made public until ten months later?"

I can see why that one got memory-holed.

[Infoboy]

Additional support for Cooley's statement was found in the book by Susan and Daniel Cohen, mentioned in another thread. They stated that Linda Mack took the lead in a petition drive to suppress the Allan Francovich film.

Mack calls this theory "naive." In fact, it's not considered "naive" by anything I've read about Lockerbie. No wonder Mack had second thoughts about posting something like this. By now everyone would be pointing to it and wondering, "Who told her to say this on Wikipedia?" "How would a Wikipedia editor by the name of 'SlimVirgin' know anything about what 'insiders' knew in October 1989, concerning a topic that was not made public until ten months later?"

I can see why that one got memory-holed.

$1,000,000 question:

If Linda Mack wasn't SlimVirgin, why on Earth would Linda Mack have been following Daniel Brandt's activities into the investigation of SlimVirgin?

You're like an information wrecking ball, I love it. There is no way, or doubt, in any sense, that Linda Mack is SlimVirgin. If this wasn't enough, "Linda Mack" going after Cooley to keep him from speaking with you is the clincher. Linda handed you a winning prize by contacting Cooley because of you. What was the first tip off way back in the day to tie into Linda Mack, anyhow?