Okay, I'll bite. He is the creator of Bitcoin but supplies terrible evidence of him being the creator to throw everyone off the scent :-)
Maybe.
It's not "terrible evidence"
It was lengthy, time-consuming, very clearly fabricated evidence.
He claimed he had private keys tied to Satoshi, but refused to sign anything with it (which would have taken 30 seconds).
I wasn't clear; if you were trying to throw people off the scent of who made Bitcoin by making everyone think it wasn't you this is a pretty successful attempt- I think he's a troll but don't discount the possibility that it's really him :-D
No one thought it was him before he spoke out, and no one believes it is him now. There was no scent to throw people off of.
People are skeptical because this isn't the first time he claimed to be Satoshi [1], and that time he did it by back-dating posts. This time he did it with a demonstrably fake signing of Sartre text.
Why would the real Satoshi go to great lengths to create fake evidence?