Deflect what attention from who? Which real one? If someone had hard evidence against the "real one" and held it for 30 years, why would they come forward now?
And if someone had hard evidence against the "real one" what good would "deflecting attention" do?
If someone declines to admit something they are suspected of, and no one has hard evidence against them, you'd have nothing.
This is becoming humorous.
So, if there were NO Deep Throat, he would have to produce one. Hence the necessity of paying off someone who is senile and can't answer reporters' questions.
Just speculation, and probably not the truth. However, I find it interesting that it took the Post, Woodward, and Bernstein a couple of days to get their story straight. And even then there were contradictions, as detailed by James Rosen on Fox.
By the way, how did you wind up here? I notice you have only been here a few days. Speculation and trying out of ideas is what we do here. Sorry if you find it humorous, but sometimes we actually find things out. Dan Rather knows this. :-)