I certainly wasn’t advocating “to reject any other viewpoints or evidence “out-of-hand” simply because it seems ridiculous or goes against the grain.”
Sometimes it is one extreme or the other, and some cases the truth is at the extremes, but quite often not.
When it comes to conspiracies, the mindset that finds conspiracies under every rock often comes to erroneous conclusions; as do also that apparently believe (though they will not say so) that closed groups of individuals never act clandestinely, and therefore anything describable as a conspiracy could not have happened because simply being “a conspiracy” is proof of non-existence. Both are in error.
As to the points against the Apollo program made here, while I’m not familiar with all of them some are silly. For example, of course stars do not appear all over the photographs if at all. Set your camera for an exposure and aperture appropriate for a sunlit scene. However, take the picture at night, aimed at the sky. No stars. You instead have a massively underexposed picture. Ditto for moon photographs: if the exposure is set to be appropriate for what is intended to be photographed, it would be far too little for stars.
As for it being supposedly inconceivable that the LEM could land on the Moon, based on one or more flight problems on Earth, that really doesn’t follow for two reasons: Moon gravity is much less and the pilot should have much more time to react to instability, and second, most likely further development occurred after the problems in flight testing.
These are to me good examples of being eager to latch onto ideas that “prove everyone else wrong” and give the believer special knowledge. That is the only reason I can see to buy into them quickly, but perhaps there is another.