You might have something there sepia. All of these fallacies are similar, basically the same idea of presenting lots of arguments without settling any particular one of them. But each has it's own subtle uniqueness.
My understanding, which is far from scholarly, is that verbosity implies one long argument with lots of tangents built into. Responders might try to pick it apart, but the arguer would resist that. Gish gallop is just another name for that one.
Moving the goalposts implies a starting point and some change or addition to the argument once it is refuted. This guy was not that linear.
I think there may be one we haven't named, wherein the arguer says something like "well, there are just too many open questions here, too many mysteries".
Shotgun might fit best, I don't think it requires that the entire argument hits you all at once. Many parts come at you quickly, and as soon as you respond to one, another pellet hits you somewhere else. The response to this one is simply to point out that each issue is remaining unresolved. If you are allowed to take each point, one at a time, the arguments are usually simple.