Whether he is "real" or not is totally irrelevant. I don't trust him any more (or less) than I trust any other stranger on the Internet. As far as I'm concerned, he could be a pimply faced teenager who's never played a hand of blackjack or he could be Stanford Wong trolling under a pseudonym and I wouldn't take any more or less stock in what he posts.
There's a huge information bias in general; the most successful people are reluctant to post their exact methods of success while they're successfully using those methods. Most of what you read about blackjack comes from failures, rejects, the outdated, the disgruntled, egomaniacs, or liars. If you can't verify something yourself, you can either choose to believe it or choose not to.
Stick to arguing about things you can actually verify - e.g. what draws more heat, X or Y - and don't waste your time arguing about things you can't - e.g. did he really deal from 1994-2001.