Mr. McCLOY. On that point, Mr. Belmont, where did he get his material, the printed material that he was distributing? Must he not have gotten that from some headquarters? Mr. BELMONT. It is my recollection that he had that printed up himself. The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Mr. McCLOY. All of it, so far as you know, was self-induced, so to speak? Mr. BELMONT. Correct. Mr. STERN. Does your answer imply, Mr. Belmont, that there were Fair Play for Cuba activities in Dallas and New Orleans that you knew about? Mr. BELMONT. No; we do not have information of Fair Play for Cuba activities in Dallas nor any organized activity in New Orleans. So that this letter that you refer to, which was undated, was, as in so many things that Oswald wrote, not based on fact. Mr. STERN. On page 7 in the answer to question 12, you refer to the inconsistencies and contradictions between the information Oswald gave to Agent Quigley when he interviewed him in the New Orleans jail and the facts as they were known to the FBI before that, and say that "in the event the investigation of Oswald warranted a further interview, these discrepancies would have been discussed with him." Can you explain why the fact of these inconsistencies and contradictions and perhaps outright lies to Agent Quigley was not itself reason for a further interview? Mr. BELMONT. Let me turn this just a little bit and say why should we re-interview him? Our interest in this man at this point was to determine whether his activities constituted a threat to the internal security of the country. It was apparent that he had made a self-serving statement to Agent Quigley. It became a matter of record in our files as a part of the case, and if we determined that the course of the investigation required us to clarify or face him down with this information, we would do it at the appropriate time. In other words, he committed no violation of the law by telling us something that wasn't true, and unless this required further investigation at that time, we would handle it in due course, in accord with the whole context of the investigation. Mr. STERN. Do you know whether the fact of these contradictions was called to the attention of the Dallas office at the time of Oswald's return to Dallas? Mr. BELMONT. The entire file, of course, or the pertinent serials were sent to Dallas at the time that the case was transferred back to Dallas so they would have that information. Mr. STERN. I gather what you are saying is they would note the contradictions from the reports? Mr. BELMONT. Yes. Mr. STERN. In the answer to question 14 on page 8, again in connection with these inconsistencies, the letter reads "These inconsistencies were considered in subsequent investigation." Can you expand on that and tell us how they were considered?