Mr. BELMONT. That is right along the line of my previous explanation to you, namely, that they were recorded in the file. In the event it was desired to talk to him further at a future date, they would be considered as to whether we desired to have him further explain. Mr. STERN. On page 12, in response to question 22, which asked for an explanation of the reason for the investigation to ascertain his whereabouts, the letter reads, "In view of Oswald's background and activities the FBI had a continuing interest in him." What was the nature of that continuing interest at that time? Mr. BELMONT. On August 21, 1963, because of his activities in distributing these pamphlets, and his arrest in New Orleans, headquarters here in Washington sent a letter to the New Orleans and Dallas offices instructing them to pursue the investigation. In other words, in evaluating this information we felt it desirable that we further explore his activities to determine whether they were inimical to the internal security of the country. So that we had this continuing interest based on our evaluation, and so instructed our field offices. Mr. STERN. Mr. Chairman, I believe the answers to the other questions give us a complete enough record. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. STERN. May this exhibit which has been marked 833 for identification be admitted? The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted in evidence under that number. (The document referred to, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 833 for identification, was received in evidence.) Mr. McCLOY. Is there anything else, Mr. Belmont, that you may want to add? You have already been asked this question as you went through all these questions and answers, but is there anything else you would like to add in view of your answers this morning in further elaboration of the answers that have been given? Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; unless the Commission has further questions at this point, I believe that the questions are answered properly and sufficiently. Mr. McCLOY. You think that if you are interviewing a defector which is something that provokes your interest, and I guess the mere fact of defection and return to the United States would do so, and if you found that defector was lying to you, you think that without something in addition to that there would be no further necessity of examining him. Is that a fair question? Let me put it another way. Mr. BELMONT. I have just a little difficulty following you. Mr. McCLOY. Here is my point. Here was a defector who comes within the category of interesting cases naturally. Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. Mr. McCLOY. And you question him and you find he is lying to you. At that stage, as I understand your testimony, you say without something more you don't necessarily go any further, is that right?