That's still not an implication that one knows, just one that implies a better explanation, or put another way, sharing of a greater understanding.
Did the interviewer pick up on that subtlety? Who knows?
We could easily know we both will be somewhere, not yet knowing one another. Getting at your intent would require more context.
For sure, Feynman implied there is more he can share on the topic. An uninformed person may well characterize that as knowing. Feynman would definitely state that as understanding, as that is what science brings us. Actually knowing stuff is another thing entirely. He spent a lot of his life communicating that to people. Great support for the better intent possible in this exchange.
Should a detail dialog of that type actually happen, those things would be made clear, or be intrinsic to it.
People, who may not understand what science is, could come to the conclusion Feynman knows. But, I very strongly doubt that was his intent. This whole discussion is about an artifact of the limited time and language being used in the interview.
Surely we can't hold Feynman accountable or assign this intent. There isn't enough said to make that conclusion.