You will probably be interested in some renewed discussion of the LR experiment and its controversial results on a wikipedia discussion page. One further example, among many, of the fact that Dr Gil Levín's results have been quite openly discussed ever since they were obtained in 1976. You and Hoagland are fond of writing and claiming that these results have been in some way suppressed — "covered up", in your jargon — but that is categorically untrue. You yourself, on this blog, cited some six papers on the subject published by Dr Levín in science journals. The entire LR data set is available to anyone on a NASA-sponsored web site.
The Gillevinia straata theory is even, for now, on the wikipedia page. It does not deserve to be, in my personal opinion, but I'm not going to delete it or even argue against it.
You and Hoagland are completely wrong about this, and your publisher, Adam Parfrey, should be ashamed of having published a book containing so many egregious factual errors.
Click here for a primer on this controversial subject.