Well, that's one straightforward, though rather disturbing, demonstration of what I was talking about. You perceived some snippets of fact and constructed a story around it.

There's no rational way you can deduce any parts of that story from my posts here. There is nothing that suggests any hidden motives on my part. Occam's razor would say that you should simply accept my stated motive, as it is a sufficient explanation.

A more linear rational view would find problems with your story. You brought up the moon landing and I responded. This contradicts the idea that I have any particular interest in moon hoax ideas.

A taxonomy of fallacies might identify this as an ad hominem attack or character assassination. You made up lies about me, instead of replying to my arguments. I note that you do not use photos or film to argue for the reality of the moon landings, but refer to the reaction of the Soviet Union. That is something worth thinking about some more. While it is still a narrative, we do glimpse a rational argument.

So, thanks for the example. The way you just conjure a paranoid fantasy tale, instead of engaging rationally, is a very topical demonstration of conspiracy thinking.