What’s the logical fallacy here ? ( see image ) this is in response to gaints and smithsonian cover up conspiracy.

The barrage of disjointed phrases is reminiscent of the Gish Gallop, but it is far too brief to qualify as such. It does, however, appear to follow the advice (often attributed to W. C. Fields), "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

it just seems to me like a paragraph of accusatory claims, not fallacies.

See Dr. Bo's: Argument by Gibberish
(also known as: bafflement, argument by [prestigious] jargon)

Description: When incomprehensible jargon or plain incoherent gibberish is used to give the appearance of a strong argument, in place of evidence or valid reasons to accept the argument.

The more common form of this argument is when the person making the argument defaults to highly technical jargon or details not directly related to the argument, then restates the conclusion.

Logical Form:

Person 1 claims that X is true.

Person 1 backs up this claim by gibberish.

Therefore, X is true.

While the argument here is not technical in the least it is nevertheless incomprehensible gibberish. Haha!