Without evidence, this becomes a competition on who is most believable based on the narrative.
Don't say there will be people saying it isn't evidence, as an excuse to not present evidence! Evidence is for skeptics. A true skeptic is also skeptical of denials, so don't let this stop you.
Not wanting to expose your agents - this is used by government and any intel organization. It is true, unfortunately, but saying this does not give you credibility either.
So, who is telling the truth? Who is the better actor? It becomes a question of faith.
The best course might be to spread this far and wide with a firm caveat that the evidence is forthcoming. That way when it does come out it is not buried and will be undeniable. Well, except to those who claim that evidence is not evidence. The point is to put such people in the minority.
The other possibility is that, by naming gatekeepers, you cause these people to lose credibility. Ironically, many of these alleged gatekeepers have been making the claim of others as controlled opposition for a while now. Without evidence, you are engaging in "He said, she said." And may be in fact doing what you say the agents are doing by muddying their message.
How about the Alex Jones bitcoin transaction where he allegedly transferred into his USDR account? Might be helpful if you could leak that one!