Noted in an earlier post...Roger Craig was not the only one that mentioned a Mauser rifle.
From the preceding post---
How could Craig's daughter know that he was "unstable from childhood"?
She couldn't have known him then
Quite odd. With the tone of that above statement..who actually was the unstable one?
Until the assassination deal...he was an accredited law enforcement officer.
I doubt that she genuinely knew very many researchers.
Roger Craig was named Man Of The Year by the Sheriff's office in 1960. Craig NEVER recanted his testimony about the 7.65 Mauser being stamped "right on the barrel". As a newbie here, I notice that the LNs here constantly divert on every subject ? Why ? Their case will not hold water.So, let's not get diverted...the question is not so much can you believe Craig(I do) and is he lying but rather can you believe the CIA ? Are they lying ? I put in my video above (see from 12:00 to 14:00) the CIA Memorandum about the gun being a 7.35 Mauser(25th) and the statement that the press reports of the gun being a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 "IS IN ERROR".
Here is the thing...LNs use the Government (CIA in this case,FBI, SS,DPD etc)...the very rogue element used to not only do the crime but cover it up. Then when you quote their sources, they jump to Roger Craig's credibility. The question here is the CIA's credibility. In the overall argument of the JFK assassination,one only need prove that there was more than one planner or shooter or a financier, more than 3 bullets(counting the Tague bullet) which is
is unbelievably easy. The Katzenbach memo stating that the public needs to be convinced that Oswald did it and that he acted alone should have been plenty enough to cause a red flag. Further, Jack Ruby stating that if Adlai Stevenson was still in office, our beloved President Kennedy would never have been assassinated. When asked to elaborate, he states simply "The answer is the man in office now" (LBJ). In summary, there are lies and there are damn lies.