The provision of 148 completely blank pages - including the name of the study, it's date of publication, the names of the researchers - cannot lawfully fulfill a FOIA request. The exclusion from release under FOIA cited for every page in that study is b(5). Exemption 5 protects “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” Nate Jones of the National Security Archives call it the 'Withhold it because you want to' exemption.

IMG source - Unredacted.com

Clearly, the agencies responding to FOIAs want to withhold information more lately than they did before.

Trump is absolutely a booster for the jabs, and the entire narrative of Scientism is a core aspect of his platform. As you have noted, all three of the candidates are 100% supporters of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, and both Trump and Biden are fully on board with the jabs. That is THE issue that differentiates Kennedy from Trump and Biden. What will surprise people about Trump is that he is a Democrat. He has been a Democrat all his life, switching to the Republican Party only to run for President, as he stated he would in 1988 on the Oprah Winfrey Show when he said he'd run as a Republican because they were easier to lie to. So Trump is a gun control advocate. He wants to take firearms away from Americans. For such reasons I cannot support Trump, Kennedy, or Biden. The only candidate that doesn't support Zionism, gun control, and mandating American civilians be forced to submit to being test subjects for Big Pharma is Dr. Shiva, and I probably have a better chance of being elected President than Dr. Shiva.

Regarding Buzz Aldrin's comments, what he says is NOT that he didn't land on the moon, but that there was no one there to take video of them stepping out of the spacecraft onto the moon, so the video was animation. That's a statement of WHY the video was faked even though he DID walk on the moon, where there was no way to record that walk on video. Faking the video and pics is not the same thing as not landing on the moon. There is a difference, and it is substantial. Concealing information does not mean the information doesn't exist. It means the information does exist. It has to exist to be concealed.

Buzz Aldrin is not admitting he didn't go to the moon when he says there was no one on the moon to record his walk on the moon. He's stating he walked on the moon, but the video is fake, because video of his moon walk was impossible to record.

The video, therefore, isn't the proof the astronauts walked on the moon, but neither is it proof they didn't. It is only proof that we were lied to. Because of a lot of other reasons, one of which you mention regarding expense, it may be the truth that astronauts did not walk on the Moon. What we know is that a lot, if not all, of the video and pictures are fake, so they aren't probative one way or the other. I will agree that the fact they faked all that video and pics suggests the entire moon landing story was similarly a lie, but evidence is not proof, which is why the standard for a criminal conviction isn't proof, but evidence that makes the judgment of guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. For many people just the fact that the pics and video were faked is enough for them to make that judgment, but there is more evidence, such as financial costs, as you point out, that is relevant to making judgment.

Regarding the video of the ascent from the moon, NASA claims the camera was operated remotely by Ed Fendell in Houston, TX, not automated. As we have established, NASA lied about a lot of things, which makes their statements highly suspect. Ed Fendell could tell us if he did that or not, if he's still alive, and if he's not as much of a liar as NASA itself.

Some prisons in the USA have TVs and video games. Some prisons are dorms, in which 80 captives sleep on bunkbeds, and footlockers where they keep their personal items, which they can lock with padlocks. Of course, guards have a master key to those locks.

I have observed transexual men entering women's sports, feminist institutions, and even running rape shelters, and how that has shattered feminism. I have been shocked at the ineffectual response of feminists to that infiltration and takeover. It has caused me to think that women themselves have not been the driving force behind the feminist movement, but the same force that has been pushing the transexual movement was, and is now pushing the transexuals on feminist institutions.

Her wedding 'birthday party' seems appropriate, as she is so narcissistic marrying herself makes sense, because she loves herself more than anyone or anything else.

Russel Brand claims to be a Christian?!? That is a shocker, indeed.

Recently I have interacted with a couple controlled opposition figures, such as you mention. When I presented factual arguments all the evidence I presented was ignored, and I was called a disinfo agent and a troll. I was very dismayed by one of them, whom I thought had merely failed to consider such evidence (the other is a blatant profiteer, and only sycophants or the very stupid pay them any attention). However, when people reveal that they do not consider evidence but start projecting false claims about people that disagree with them, I consider that proof they are controlled opposition and am glad to find out they are fake news. It can be difficult to avoid being deceived, and it is always a good thing to be able to dismiss deception when you can, because the truth is what sets us free, not lies.

When you bring up numbers of views as being indicative of whether or not someone is a cointelpro agent, I think you are making a bad mistake. What is the point of being controlled opposition? To mislead as many people as possible. Cointelpro operatives that get lots of views aren't good people because they get lots of views. They're good cointelpro agents that are misleading lots of people.

I am confident you are sincere, and I am aware Russel Brand came out of the Fabian Society. I am very suspicious of Russel Brand, and the more views he gets only causes my suspicion of him to increase. Professional psychological manipulators are very good at psychological manipulation. They're professionals. That makes them very successful at misleading lots of people, which they are given plentiful resources to better enable them to succeed with. I suggest that very popular voices in truther movements that are controlled opposition are more likely to be supported with covert funding and staff that aren't available to honest reporters, and the real test needs to be on whether they disrupt the movement by accusing others, whether they accept constructive criticism, and whether they can change their mind when they find out new information that proves they were wrong.

I have seen you change your position on things when you found out you were wrong, and that is what it takes to be honest. Not sure Russel Brand has done that, and he sure does have a lot of support. I haven't seen much of his stuff, so can't really comment beyond that I am aware of his earlier advocacy of Fabian policies and ideals, which are definitely not good for freedom.

Thanks!