The Tail Zipper Man

[dankbaar]

Below are pages 190 + 191 from the Night Watch, the autobiography of David Atlee Phillips.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/dap190.JPG

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/dap191.JPG

Does anyone have any thoughts why Phillips would have inserted this clearly untrue story into his biography?

Wim

[dankbaar]

Here's my two cents:

Head Zipper man = Edward Lansdale

Tail Zipper man = David Atlee Phillips

Snake = JFK

Wim

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

02.09.2013Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:10.29.2006 - Mr. Wim Dankbaar Posted this interesting Headline.The references that he Posted, and the Comments that he made did not receive the appropriate attention in My Opinion.Has anybody done any more recent analysis, investigation, reading, research, or study on David Atlee Phillips, or Edward Geary Lansdale that may be germane here, and supplement Wim's well made points ?In my opinion David Atlee Phillips and Edward Geary Lansdale certainly do not receive the attention, focus,and analyses that they deserve relative to The JFK Event, before, during, and after 11.22.1963.As always, I strongly recommend that you first read, research, and study material completely aout a SubjectMatter, and then formulate your own Opinions and Theories.Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies, thoughts, or writings on anyaspect of this Subject Matter ?Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educate a Whole New Generation of JFk Researchers who maynot be as well versed as you.Comments ?Respectfully,BB.

[Bob]

This calls for a response from Randy Bednorz, who knows the mind of David Atlee Phillips better than anyone I've ever encountered. DAP suffered from a narcissistic personality disorder according to Randy. That may explain part of this.

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

03.16.2015Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:10.29.2006 - Mr. Willem Dankbaar Posted this Important, but perhaps seemingly vague Headline.Wim also referenced this today under the Headline of Operation Zipper.This is a powerful, probative Subject Matter that might appeal to the truly Advanced JFK Researcher who is steeped in serious C.I.A. and D.I.A. studies.Wim is analyzing and referencing from the works of David Atlee Phillips, the Controller of both James Earl Sutton, and Lee Harvey Oswald.NOBODY HAS EVER DONE THIS AS WIM HAS DONE.I have often indicated that there is not enough analysis, research, and study about Lyman L. Lemnitzer, Allen Welch Dulles, John Foster Dulles, Prescott Bush, Averill Harriman, Edward Geary Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, James Jesus Angelton, Theodore "Ted - The White Ghost" Shackley, and a many others.Wim is deep in important, probative analysis of Hidden Clues by David Atlee Phillips. The Very Serious JFKResearcher will be well served to follow Wim's facts, points of information, and theories.As always, I strongly recommend that you first read, research, and study material completely about a SubjectMatter, and then formulate your own Opinions and Theories.Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies, thoughts, or writings on any aspect of this Subject Matter ?Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educated a Whole New Generation of JFK Researchers who may not be as well versed as you.Comments ?Respectfully,BB.

[dankbaar]

He says the snake measured 34 feet and three inches. Why does Phillips think it worthwhile to measure its exact length? I think JFK was in fact the 35th President who served for three years, but in many references he is also named as the 34th President. The reference to "Two more bullets in the snake's head" is also intriguing. It's like Phillips knows that JFK was shot in the head twice. Why did Phillips put this obviously untrue story in his autobiography? What other purpose could it have than making a veiled reference to the JFK assassination?The snake story is provingly untrue. The longest snake ever captured was 25 feet. There are no snakes on this globe of 34 feet. If the story were true it would have been all over the news. So one must wonder why Phillips put this fantasy into his otherwise factual memoirs. http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/wor ... ptivity%29

[Randy Bednorz]

Hello.It has been . . . too long . . . since I last posted here.First -- to the nitty gritty of the JPEG scans of "Night Watch," which Wim posted.It is important to avoid reading too much into the story about the snake. It is equally important to assess it with some tentative conclusions and integrating it into a "body of evidence" for things contained in a set of books. At a minimum, the set contains a book by E. Howard Hunt, and pretty much everything Phillips published to "hide in plain view" of their readership.The snake story complements pages 58 to 60 of the Night Watch. By themselves, you cannot make conclusive proof for things you might ask about those pages. It is Phillips' first (1977) attempt to publish, and "answer" things that Hunt included in his Bay of Pigs memoir -- "Give Us This Day." Instead, the passages offer us suspicions and an increased probability or likelihood of something that explains what Phillips was doing in midwifing the JFK assassination. CIA authors had to have their books vetted by their career colleagues to assure that nothing of secret operations were compromised, and I assume this is still a practice -- not just for CIA -- but for covert operatives in general. Take for instance the flap about a Navy Seal who published his book about killing Bin Laden: the issue was raised there that the publication compromised secret information.We begin by asking some naïve questions -- perhaps posing some preliminary hypotheses, based on what we can learn about Phillips from his books, from his testimonies before the Senate Church Committee and related intelligence oversight committees during the 1970s, and from Fonzi's "Last Investigation." Fonzi himself mentions "Night Watch" in his groundbreaking work following the 92 Records Collection Act. But as an historian -- and even as an investigator -- he doesn't look closely at anything Phillips published. Phillips was trained as a propaganda specialist and psy-war expert from the early time of his career. He had participated with Hunt, Dave Morales and others in the (1954?) overthrow of the Guatamalan Arbenz regime, through the use of a radio station in Honduras. The stories vary, but the CIA group had literally frightened the Arbenz regime to leave the country, allowing a handful of CIA-backed rebels to assume control of the capital. Some real military action may have occurred in order to add realism to the phony radio news about battles and rebellion, but it is important to underscore what CIA was doing there and in various actions around the world. One of the important aspects of the Church and related committee hearings was to put a stop to CIA's partnership with Hollywood in promoting various aspects of a CIA propaganda program. So a person might ask, without knowing about Phillips' other pursuits (acting, writing plays) or his brother James ( a Hollywood screenwriter who knew John Frankenheimer, Robert Mitchum and several others), whether or not there was any weight to the suspicion by early assassination researchers of some connection between "The Manchurian Candidate" film and the actual Dealey Plaza assassination. We know that this suspicion arose in the 1970s. It is important to understand the parallel between Condon's book, the Frankenheimer film and the mythical story about Lee Harvey Oswald. The two stories are very similar. That a fiction like Manchurian Candidate has a POW and Medal of Honor recipient coming back to the US from China, having been brainwashed to be a hypno assassin, might be relevant to a news story about an honorably discharged Marine, who returns from the USSR to murder the President -- also requires some insight into the various aspects of a "propaganda program" to influence public opinion. At that time, people believed the myth of a "monster plot" or international communist conspiracy: the fiction and the assassination that followed it would leave people thinking that -- indeed -- Russia and China were acting in concert. This isn't much different than Lansdale's campaign in the Philippines as described by Prouty -- going around to remote villages to present alarmist films to people who had never seen films before, and then following up with phony attacks by Huk communists to buttress the film indoctrination. In this way, CIA was able to assure Magsaysay's election to the Philippine presidency. He would use related or similar techniques in the 1955 election of Vietnam's Diem.It may be that Condon's book and Frankenheimer's film were accidents that figured well into Phillips' likely planning of the assassination; it may also be that there was some CIA effort to assist in converting the book to a film, and that Phillips was privy to it. Look at all the "theories" of the assassination. We may not be able to confirm that any single theory conforms to the real truth of the matter. But would we not want to know if a set of theories are the only possible explanations for what happened? Now, I have proven to myself that the only theories worth considering are those that put Phillips at the center of both the assassination and the coverup conspiracies. How I arrived at that conclusion requires a complete analysis of Phillips' books, which I had attempted to provide over the last decade here, but even my understanding was incomplete, and I cannot do it again here easily without much writing and posting. At this very moment, I don't have enough time to do it as a marathon effort.But let's get back to making some preliminary and naïve hypotheses, as I did when I first acquired Night Watch and before I even knew that Richard Condon was the author of "Manchurian." To really understand the assassination from a "history of ideas" perspective unique to a guilty party, it is valuable to read these totally fictional books by Condon -- "Manchurian Candidate" and "The Oldest Confession." Nobody has ever really wanted to spend time with those tasks -- after all -- they are fictional works. There are striking differences between the Manchurian book and the film. The book seems funny -- almost humorous. The plot has been transformed into a geo-political nightmare in the film.Our first hypothesis -- knowing Phillips was a propaganda and psy-war specialist -- could be "Was there a project to promote the Frankenheimer film?" We could imagine that maybe Phillips reveals something about it in his books, even without arming ourselves with more insights into Phillips' life and character that would explain exactly WHY he might put such indications in his books. And if we find some such indications, people might say "this is someone's 'interpretation' or imagination" about what Phillips is doing. But understanding Phillips at least allows us to put our "imaginations" into context.So on page 58 of Night Watch, Phillips begins by explaining the pressure of the McCarthy Hearings on CIA and other government agencies. This has a parallel in Condon's book: Senator Iselin is a dead ringer in some respects to Joe McCarthy, and there is a scene in the book wherein news reporters ask him questions about communist infiltration of the government, and Iselin responds with numbers: "There are 180 communists in the State Department . . ." and a few minutes later "There are 250 communists in the State Department." These are not the exact quotes, but you can find the passages in Manchurian and view them in the film version. In the following paragraph, Phillips mentions CIA's propaganda efforts, teaming up with publishers, writers, directors -- and Hollywood. And in the paragraph following that, he tells a joke about a great propaganda project -- ostensibly communicated to him by some other CIA colleague -- that involves dropping giant condoms on the USSR stamped "Made in USA -- medium size." So if Phillips couldn't help himself to make indications in his book that CIA had promoted the film version of Condon's story, this is such an indication, it slyly slips by CIA colleagues who would vet "Night Watch." Is it conclusive? Not quite. Is it supported by other aspects of Phillips' books? I believe -- and would attempt to prove so.The story about the snake is subtle. First, he doesn't mention the name of the snake -- its species -- but we know that such a large Amazonian snake would only be an Ananconda. And again, it is a bit much of a coincidence that the word "Anaconda" is an sort of "ANA-gram" for "Condon." So let's say we only suspect that CIA had a project -- totally innocent by itself -- to promote an "anti-communist" pre-propaganda myth by influencing the film. It is even possible they supported Condon's book-writing. We can suspect this. We may not be able to argue that CIA's involvement in the film effort is "conclusive." Suppose we make another naïve hypothesis from these discoveries about the "Condoms" project and the snake story? We can say that we have some basis for suspecting the nature of the film's support, or Phillips' knowledge about it. We could also make another hypothesis: Phillips -- perhaps even one or more colleagues of Phillips -- are obsessed with Condon and his books, or -- we'll find more references to Condon or his books within Phillips' books -- possibly within those of a colleague. If we discover such things, they shine back on our original hypothesis to make it even more likely. If we apply Occam's razor to attach meaning to such references in the books of Phillips and Hunt, the references can only mean certain things: we don't just "imagine" them.As to the length of the snake in the story. I think it was given as feet and inches. Start with Jack Kennedy's inauguration and count months and days to Dealey Plaza. If I remember, I thought it was an exact match to feet and inches. But if it is, we'd best label it as a compelling coincidence. Then we can evaluate it against all the other seemingly coincidental things about Phillips' books.Why would Phillips put things like this in his books? Either we are correct in our suspicions as to what Phillips means by the stories, or it is just our imagination. But there is a compelling reason Phillips would do these things, and there is a tradition of pop-psychology into which such a story would fit, sometimes used in film plots going back to Fritz Lang's "M" ("Der Kinder Mord") released in the early 1930s. Every aspect of Phillips' life would suggest that he was either a narcissist, or that he might have been diagnosed has having "narcissistic personality disorder." From his mother's letter written to Phillips on his father's death in 1929, we suspect that she doted on her son. He aspired to be an actor, and never really gave up his ambitions. There are a larger percentage of narcissists in the acting profession (among others, like "management") than you find in the general population. And narcissists tend to overvalue the "special projects" of their careers -- such as Phillips' reaction to the Operation Zapata Bay of Pigs failure. Further, narcissists have a penchant for extreme jealousy, such as Phillips may have had for JFK, or such that he likely had for his brother James, who had published a shelf-full of spy-novels under the pen-name Philip Atlee and won an "Edgar Allen Poe Award" for his accomplishments. There is no other explanation as to the indications PHillips puts in his books. He can't help himself. He wants to prove that he's smarter than those who vet his books. He wants to tease the readership (who would never likely discover any of it), and among his readership as a "second audience" would be Hunt and other CIA colleagues -- who might discover it after all. And he wants to flirt with his crime as "hiding it in plain view," publishing a book at just about every point in his life when he was under an investigative spotlight -- the Church Committee, Fonzi's HSCA investigation and interview with him in presence of Antonio Veciana, or the years in which Washington Post, Washingtonian and London Observer pointed fingers at him as suspect in the JFK murder. Every time these things happens, Phillips publishes another book. Then, in the mid-80s, he initiates a lawsuit against the news publishers, hires Vincent Bugliosi to represent him in Britain against the Observer. And at the same time, he coaches Bugliosi for the BBC mock-trial of Lee Oswald with Gerry Spence as defense attorney. What is that all about? Phillips died around 1988/89. 20 years later, Bugliosi publishes his great and final pronouncement about the assassination, supporting the old Warren Report story.The origins of the JFK murder can be found in propaganda and psy-war art and science. The cover story about the assassination has origins in the same art and science. The publications about the assassination figure highly as containing elements of propaganda -- about the assassination.

[Bob]

Randy Bednorz wrote:Hello.It has been . . . too long . . . since I last posted here.First -- to the nitty gritty of the JPEG scans of "Night Watch," which Wim posted.It is important to avoid reading too much into the story about the snake. It is equally important to assess it with some tentative conclusions and integrating it into a "body of evidence" for things contained in a set of books. At a minimum, the set contains a book by E. Howard Hunt, and pretty much everything Phillips published to "hide in plain view" of their readership.The snake story complements pages 58 to 60 of the Night Watch. By themselves, you cannot make conclusive proof for things you might ask about those pages. It is Phillips' first (1977) attempt to publish, and "answer" things that Hunt included in his Bay of Pigs memoir -- "Give Us This Day." Instead, the passages offer us suspicions and an increased probability or likelihood of something that explains what Phillips was doing in midwifing the JFK assassination. CIA authors had to have their books vetted by their career colleagues to assure that nothing of secret operations were compromised, and I assume this is still a practice -- not just for CIA -- but for covert operatives in general. Take for instance the flap about a Navy Seal who published his book about killing Bin Laden: the issue was raised there that the publication compromised secret information.We begin by asking some naïve questions -- perhaps posing some preliminary hypotheses, based on what we can learn about Phillips from his books, from his testimonies before the Senate Church Committee and related intelligence oversight committees during the 1970s, and from Fonzi's "Last Investigation." Fonzi himself mentions "Night Watch" in his groundbreaking work following the 92 Records Collection Act. But as an historian -- and even as an investigator -- he doesn't look closely at anything Phillips published. Phillips was trained as a propaganda specialist and psy-war expert from the early time of his career. He had participated with Hunt, Dave Morales and others in the (1954?) overthrow of the Guatamalan Arbenz regime, through the use of a radio station in Honduras. The stories vary, but the CIA group had literally frightened the Arbenz regime to leave the country, allowing a handful of CIA-backed rebels to assume control of the capital. Some real military action may have occurred in order to add realism to the phony radio news about battles and rebellion, but it is important to underscore what CIA was doing there and in various actions around the world. One of the important aspects of the Church and related committee hearings was to put a stop to CIA's partnership with Hollywood in promoting various aspects of a CIA propaganda program. So a person might ask, without knowing about Phillips' other pursuits (acting, writing plays) or his brother James ( a Hollywood screenwriter who knew John Frankenheimer, Robert Mitchum and several others), whether or not there was any weight to the suspicion by early assassination researchers of some connection between "The Manchurian Candidate" film and the actual Dealey Plaza assassination. We know that this suspicion arose in the 1970s. It is important to understand the parallel between Condon's book, the Frankenheimer film and the mythical story about Lee Harvey Oswald. The two stories are very similar. That a fiction like Manchurian Candidate has a POW and Medal of Honor recipient coming back to the US from China, having been brainwashed to be a hypno assassin, might be relevant to a news story about an honorably discharged Marine, who returns from the USSR to murder the President -- also requires some insight into the various aspects of a "propaganda program" to influence public opinion. At that time, people believed the myth of a "monster plot" or international communist conspiracy: the fiction and the assassination that followed it would leave people thinking that -- indeed -- Russia and China were acting in concert. This isn't much different than Lansdale's campaign in the Philippines as described by Prouty -- going around to remote villages to present alarmist films to people who had never seen films before, and then following up with phony attacks by Huk communists to buttress the film indoctrination. In this way, CIA was able to assure Magsaysay's election to the Philippine presidency. He would use related or similar techniques in the 1955 election of Vietnam's Diem.It may be that Condon's book and Frankenheimer's film were accidents that figured well into Phillips' likely planning of the assassination; it may also be that there was some CIA effort to assist in converting the book to a film, and that Phillips was privy to it. Look at all the "theories" of the assassination. We may not be able to confirm that any single theory conforms to the real truth of the matter. But would we not want to know if a set of theories are the only possible explanations for what happened? Now, I have proven to myself that the only theories worth considering are those that put Phillips at the center of both the assassination and the coverup conspiracies. How I arrived at that conclusion requires a complete analysis of Phillips' books, which I had attempted to provide over the last decade here, but even my understanding was incomplete, and I cannot do it again here easily without much writing and posting. At this very moment, I don't have enough time to do it as a marathon effort.But let's get back to making some preliminary and naïve hypotheses, as I did when I first acquired Night Watch and before I even knew that Richard Condon was the author of "Manchurian." To really understand the assassination from a "history of ideas" perspective unique to a guilty party, it is valuable to read these totally fictional books by Condon -- "Manchurian Candidate" and "The Oldest Confession." Nobody has ever really wanted to spend time with those tasks -- after all -- they are fictional works. There are striking differences between the Manchurian book and the film. The book seems funny -- almost humorous. The plot has been transformed into a geo-political nightmare in the film.Our first hypothesis -- knowing Phillips was a propaganda and psy-war specialist -- could be "Was there a project to promote the Frankenheimer film?" We could imagine that maybe Phillips reveals something about it in his books, even without arming ourselves with more insights into Phillips' life and character that would explain exactly WHY he might put such indications in his books. And if we find some such indications, people might say "this is someone's 'interpretation' or imagination" about what Phillips is doing. But understanding Phillips at least allows us to put our "imaginations" into context.So on page 58 of Night Watch, Phillips begins by explaining the pressure of the McCarthy Hearings on CIA and other government agencies. This has a parallel in Condon's book: Senator Iselin is a dead ringer in some respects to Joe McCarthy, and there is a scene in the book wherein news reporters ask him questions about communist infiltration of the government, and Iselin responds with numbers: "There are 180 communists in the State Department . . ." and a few minutes later "There are 250 communists in the State Department." These are not the exact quotes, but you can find the passages in Manchurian and view them in the film version. In the following paragraph, Phillips mentions CIA's propaganda efforts, teaming up with publishers, writers, directors -- and Hollywood. And in the paragraph following that, he tells a joke about a great propaganda project -- ostensibly communicated to him by some other CIA colleague -- that involves dropping giant condoms on the USSR stamped "Made in USA -- medium size." So if Phillips couldn't help himself to make indications in his book that CIA had promoted the film version of Condon's story, this is such an indication, it slyly slips by CIA colleagues who would vet "Night Watch." Is it conclusive? Not quite. Is it supported by other aspects of Phillips' books? I believe -- and would attempt to prove so.The story about the snake is subtle. First, he doesn't mention the name of the snake -- its species -- but we know that such a large Amazonian snake would only be an Ananconda. And again, it is a bit much of a coincidence that the word "Anaconda" is an sort of "ANA-gram" for "Condon." So let's say we only suspect that CIA had a project -- totally innocent by itself -- to promote an "anti-communist" pre-propaganda myth by influencing the film. It is even possible they supported Condon's book-writing. We can suspect this. We may not be able to argue that CIA's involvement in the film effort is "conclusive." Suppose we make another naïve hypothesis from these discoveries about the "Condoms" project and the snake story? We can say that we have some basis for suspecting the nature of the film's support, or Phillips' knowledge about it. We could also make another hypothesis: Phillips -- perhaps even one or more colleagues of Phillips -- are obsessed with Condon and his books, or -- we'll find more references to Condon or his books within Phillips' books -- possibly within those of a colleague. If we discover such things, they shine back on our original hypothesis to make it even more likely. If we apply Occam's razor to attach meaning to such references in the books of Phillips and Hunt, the references can only mean certain things: we don't just "imagine" them.As to the length of the snake in the story. I think it was given as feet and inches. Start with Jack Kennedy's inauguration and count months and days to Dealey Plaza. If I remember, I thought it was an exact match to feet and inches. But if it is, we'd best label it as a compelling coincidence. Then we can evaluate it against all the other seemingly coincidental things about Phillips' books.Why would Phillips put things like this in his books? Either we are correct in our suspicions as to what Phillips means by the stories, or it is just our imagination. But there is a compelling reason Phillips would do these things, and there is a tradition of pop-psychology into which such a story would fit, sometimes used in film plots going back to Fritz Lang's "M" ("Der Kinder Mord") released in the early 1930s. Every aspect of Phillips' life would suggest that he was either a narcissist, or that he might have been diagnosed has having "narcissistic personality disorder." From his mother's letter written to Phillips on his father's death in 1929, we suspect that she doted on her son. He aspired to be an actor, and never really gave up his ambitions. There are a larger percentage of narcissists in the acting profession (among others, like "management") than you find in the general population. And narcissists tend to overvalue the "special projects" of their careers -- such as Phillips' reaction to the Operation Zapata Bay of Pigs failure. Further, narcissists have a penchant for extreme jealousy, such as Phillips may have had for JFK, or such that he likely had for his brother James, who had published a shelf-full of spy-novels under the pen-name Philip Atlee and won an "Edgar Allen Poe Award" for his accomplishments. There is no other explanation as to the indications PHillips puts in his books. He can't help himself. He wants to prove that he's smarter than those who vet his books. He wants to tease the readership (who would never likely discover any of it), and among his readership as a "second audience" would be Hunt and other CIA colleagues -- who might discover it after all. And he wants to flirt with his crime as "hiding it in plain view," publishing a book at just about every point in his life when he was under an investigative spotlight -- the Church Committee, Fonzi's HSCA investigation and interview with him in presence of Antonio Veciana, or the years in which Washington Post, Washingtonian and London Observer pointed fingers at him as suspect in the JFK murder. Every time these things happens, Phillips publishes another book. Then, in the mid-80s, he initiates a lawsuit against the news publishers, hires Vincent Bugliosi to represent him in Britain against the Observer. And at the same time, he coaches Bugliosi for the BBC mock-trial of Lee Oswald with Gerry Spence as defense attorney. What is that all about? Phillips died around 1988/89. 20 years later, Bugliosi publishes his great and final pronouncement about the assassination, supporting the old Warren Report story.The origins of the JFK murder can be found in propaganda and psy-war art and science. The cover story about the assassination has origins in the same art and science. The publications about the assassination figure highly as containing elements of propaganda -- about the assassination.Thanks for your unbelievable insight on this, Randy. Outstanding stuff!

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

01.12.2016Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:10.29.2006 - Mr. Willem Dankbaar Posted this Extremely Analytical, Brilliant, Probative, Thought Provoking Headline in retrospect. My Opinion.Much can be learned from the Complete Works of David Atlee Phillips, just as can be accomplished from theComplete Works of Robert Clayton Buick, who both knew, met, and/or worked with each other, and otherC.I.A. Operatives in Mexico, in September, 1963.Has anybody but Wim or myself done any serious reading, research, and study of The Complete Works ofDavid Atlee Phillips, and his related lifetime stories ?As always, I strongly recommend that you first read, research, and study material completely about a SubjectMatter, and then formulate your own Opinons and theories.Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies, thoughts, or writings on anyaspect of this Subject Matter ?Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educate a Whole New Generation of JFK Researchers who maynot be as well versed as you.Comments ?Respectfully,BB.

[Bob]

Has anybody but Wim or myself done any serious reading, research, and study of The Complete Works ofDavid Atlee Phillips, and his related lifetime stories ? - Bruce BrycheckIndeed. His name is Randy Bednorz. See his post from above. In fact, I don't believe that there is anyone who knows more about DAP than Randy.