I suppose anyone could. However, generally speaking, shills aren't so nuanced with so much inconsistent illogical rambling and ego-driven nonsense. He's both smart and stupid, in different ways. Shills are generally 2D and serve agendas. If he's really a shill then he's playing a long con and is wasting his own time. Sure some shills and/or contrarians will politely debate you for a while then at the 4th or 6th round suddenly start name-calling and lose all civility. They don't have patience to banter endlessly.

I am my own authority. I judge for myself. I agree with you on most things. Sometimes I think you're quick on the draw when calling some folks shills, when really they're just arguing a point you don't agree with and/or are being stupid/irrational/illogical/intentionally ignorant. I'd consider him a nay-sayer and a skeptic who sides with the corporatocracy - with the potential of becoming a legit skeptic of all power, with a little guidance. Like many here, he seems to think he has super powers of exceptional discernment - specifically that he can just whip up an independent investigation to prove or debunk things (ie. 9/11) that collectively humanity hasn't definitively solved in decades. That's ego, not shill behavior. Conspiracies aren't algorithms to reverse engineer, they are about diverse manipulations unified under centralized control, a simple fact MOST don't yet fathom.

For my part, I have tried to keep my shill-calling to an absolute minimum, yet I have stooped to that level and I've regretted it about a quarter of the time. Rather than just calling them a shill I now always try to qualify it as shill-behavior and/or ignorance, intentional or not. It gives them and me a way out, be corrected, etc - without anyone losing too much face.

I have no standard sniff test. If it comes up again I'll ping you for your take on it.