It's not "relevant" to them, because once someone is proficient with chemistry, forensic, process engineering he'll looks straight through their charade. Of course chemistry isn't the silver bullet argument here... It's the whole design of facilities and supposed procedures that sinks that boat. I can't prove it first hand, but I'd say the inner circle of "Holocaust Historians" is at least intuitively aware that their dog won't hunt. Or why do you think it's those amateurish bloggers that try to debate Revisionists - And not the crowd that deals with Holocaust issues for a living? Sure, they'll argue that "Revisionists" aren't relevant, just some antisemitic conspiracy theorists that would be elevated by debate or by dealing with their arguments. But that's just academic snobism played, when they don't have the answers they should have. The real reason is that when they'd argue with open conclusions and did a fair, objective treatment on evidence and arguments, it won't look that great for orthodox Holocaustianity.

Green was an exception to that, but he's not from the humanities anyway. So, while he seems to have some vested interest in the Holocaust, it's not his job that is at stake here. Once the Holocaust is history, his department would still exist and he still would have a job. That's a bit different with the "Holocaust studies" department. Once there is common acceptance that the Holocaust is essentially a propaganda hoax by the Allies that mutated after the war into a full blown industry, their funding and political support will dry up. Now that will make those with a PhD in Holocaust studies pretty irrelevant and they'd sit the rest of their life's with an egg in their faces, while they're flipping burgers at McDonalds, if they're lucky. So they'll have to avoid anything what endangers the life of their goose that lays the golden eggs for them until now.