That was the way I read it initially to. I think the intended meaning was that we don't know anything about it, up to and including this ridiculous claim. It's more to highlight the lack of transparency than actually put forth a viable theory.

I'd agree if I actually framed it as a legitimate theory. But I didn't.

What do you mean by claiming to not have framed it as a legitimate theory; you're saying it's an illegitimate theory, as in, you yourself don't believe it's true?

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12754526

It was hyperbole. I personally think that the language is clear too. Here's a good post explaining the usage of the phrase "For all I know" since apparently HN isn't familiar with the idiom https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/92207/what-is-th...

His statement was literally correct, and useful in highlighting a different perspective on what is known to be known. The negativity seems to stem from not taking it literally.