Correct. Not until you explain how everything you posted is not consistent with Oswald being a patsy.
You seem to think that Oswald was a lone nut by default and it is up to CTs to prove he wasn't. The reality is that the LN hypothesis is weaker than the patsy hypothesis. You LNers are all in with Oswald acting alone, which has a crapload of evidence suggesting otherwise. However, you deny a conspiracy because it's 1 strike and you are out if even 1 other person was involved. That's why the HSCA concluded that Oswald likely did not act alone. The LN hypothesis can be disproven with more evidence, but you can never prove it like you can't prove bigfoot didn't do it.
I don't see many CTs claiming Oswald was innocent or not involved is some fashion, only that he was a patsy and not a LN. Otherwise, all the points you made above are consistent with Oswald being a patsy. There is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that Oswald did not even touch the MC rifle that was planted on the 6th floor. No prints on both murder weapons, a useless scope on the rifle, and an impossible trajectory from the 6th floor entering JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and exiting at C7, then into Connally at the 5th rib then smashing thru his wrist bone and into his thigh, then falling out onto the wrong stretcher in pristine condition with no DNA on it. And all that is just fine with you LNers because you assume Oswald took all the shots and was definitely NOT a patsy. There is a plethora of similar circumstantial evidence pointing to a conspiracy that needs to be explained before CTs can buy into the LN hypothesis.
For CTs, that ship has sailed because you LNers have failed to defend your LNer position with any facts or evidence that refute a conspiracy. Oswald may have even taken ALL the shots, (which I don't believe) but he was no LN. He was a patsy, which all your anecdotal evidence supports. You can't cherry pick your evidence that you think supports your position and ignore the evidence that doesn't. That's not how logic and critical thinking works. Not very scientific.
Palmprints were found on the rifle. No prints were found on the handgun but since it was wrestled out of his hands while he tried to shoot a second police officer, I think that is good enough. Oh, except you assume the officers in the theater were all lying. So, I guess we should assume that the officer who lifted the palmprint off the rifle that night was lying as well. If we assume that any officer who lifts fingerprints form a gun, or even wrestles the gun from the suspects grip is lying, that does make it pretty hard to build a case against that suspect. Or any other suspect.
You conclude there is no evidence against Oswald. That no prints were ever found on either weapon. Any facts against Oswald disappear in a memory hole in your brain. In the future you will probably again claim that no prints of Oswald were ever found on either weapon.
If I make the assumption, that everyone was lying, Wesley Frazier, the police who were at the theater that Oswald was arrested at, the ballistic experts who tested the rifle or rifles of the same model, the Dallas policeman who lifted the palmprint from the rifle, etc., the yes, the case against Oswald falls apart. But these same assumptions cause the case against every criminal who was guilty and was found guilty, to fall apart.
It is beyond belief that Oswald was involved in a plot to assassinate the president but did not know he was involved in a plot to assassinate the President. “Here, go home and bring back to work a long narrow package. Make certain you are by yourself and out of sight as the President drives by.” If I make these kinds of assumptions, I can acquit every criminal who has ever been charged with a crime.
I can imagine that there was a conspiracy that Oswald knew about and knew what it was going to do, or very likely was going to do. I cannot imagine that there was a conspiracy which Oswald had no idea was about killing the President.
In any case you give no answer to what could happen in the future that would cause you to conclude that Oswald killed the president and acted alone. So, it appears that you cannot even imagine such a train of events. Perhaps you know yourself well enough to realize that you would immediately forgot any new facts that are discovered that show Oswald’s guilt.