Would it be chutzpah to ask why this doesn't interest the honorable Rabbi?

After all, without the revelation at Mount Sinai there is no Judaism, and if the location of Mount Sinai is somewhere else, or if there are contradictions regarding its location, that undermines the tradition passed down from generation to generation.

I don't see why or how that undermines anything. Beyond that, I have very limited trust in these historical speculations.

Does the alternative location of the mountain fit the tradition as written in the Torah?
Does a factual dispute about the location of Mount Sinai (which is the most critical place in Judaism, where the Torah was given—for without the revelation at Mount Sinai we would be left empty-handed) not in itself so undermine things that it shows the tradition was not transmitted properly from generation to generation, and undermines trust in the story of the revelation?
As for the speculations, if these really are only speculations, then none of the above means anything. That's why I referred the Rabbi to the speaker's own words and his evidence, so that he could give his opinion.