In any attempt to devise a plausible conspiracy theory, it seems to me that the difficulty increases exponentially if one insists on making Oswald any sort of patsy.
He merely said he was a patsy of the DPD, picked up only because he'd been to Russia. He said nothing to suggest he'd been a patsy in the assassination unless you want to view his statement to Robert ("Don't believe the so-called evidence against me") in that context. If he'd loudly announced "Things aren't what they appear. I've been framed. The truth will come out in due course." - well, OK, the CT patsy crowd would have a leg to stand on. Since he didn't, I simply don't understand the patsy-obsession.
The Actual Oswald was perfectly capable of strange and violent actions. A great deal of evidence suggests he was an active shooter on 11-22. A conspiracy that deals with the Actual Oswald and the Actual Evidence pointing to him has, it seems to me, vastly more plausibility than any patsy theory and looks far more like a real-world conspiracy. The patsy theories inevitably become absurdly complex and top-heavy, almost a textbook case of How Not to Apply Occam's Razor (or Ockham, as the case may be).
Yes, a non-patsy theory is not as sexy or fun. Since the CT crowd seems obsessed with making Oswald a patsy and all that flows from that, I've concluded that this isn't a serious historical quest but more in the nature of a hobby, game or religion. Sexy and fun seems to be exactly what the CT crowd wants.
The "patsy" thing isn't really to do with Oswald's use of that word and what it might mean.
It was simply adopted by those who believe Oswald was framed. That's all it means. Pick another word - "stooge", "fall-guy", "dupe" etc.
I've posted a perfectly plausible and simple conspiracy theory that has Oswald as the fall-guy. It certainly isn't "absurdly complex and top-heavy".
To be honest, I get the impression you're not really interested in discussing or debating anything other than an Oswald-Did-It scenario.
That's cool.
That's your interpretation of the evidence.
Ronald Fischer, Bob Edwards, Arnold Rowland and Howard Brennan describe the man on the 6th floor wearing clothing Oswald wasn't wearing that day.
Amos Euins repeatedly describes seeing a bald spot on top of the shooters head, 2 to 3 inches back from his hairline - Oswald didn't have such a bald spot.
Oswald did have a pronounced receding hairline, neither Fischer nor Edwards report that even though they describe his hair and Rowland flatly states that he didn't think the man had a receding hairline.
Brennan thought the man on the 6th floor was a lot older than Oswald.
Brennan, Fisher and Rowland described the man as having a fair/light complexion. Oswald had a dark, unshaven complexion.
Brennan describes the shooter standing at the window admiring his handiwork after the shooting and that he was still stood there after the presidential limo had passed into the underpass. This is at least 8 seconds after the head shot (thought by many to be the last shot). This alone destroys the 3 second window of opportunity Oswald had to get down to the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter with Baker, as established by the time trials.
Hank Norman, stood directly under the shooters position. He heard the shell casings hitting the wooden floor a few feet directly above his head. According to the time trials Oswald was supposed to start his escape immediately after the last shot but, although Hank heard the shell casings hitting the floor, he never heard Oswald's heavy Oxford work shoes moving. Because, as Brennan pointed out, the shooter just stood there, he didn't move anywhere for a good few seconds.
As Oswald clomped down the stairs to the 5th floor and walked across the floor to the next set of stairs, he wasn't noticed by Jack Dougherty who was supposed to be stood just feet away from the stairs.
The same on the 4th floor. Dorothy Garner followed Vickie Adams and Sandra Styles into the storage area behind the offices. She heard the two young women clattering down the wooden stairs in their high heels and a couple of minutes later she saw Truly and Baker come up the same stairs. In the intervening seconds she should have seen and heard Oswald as he moved down the stairs from the 5th floor, walked across the floor and down the stairs to the 3rd floor. But she didn't. And neither did any of the other women who had moved into the same area and were watching the railroad/grassy knoll area through the west windows.
And the idea that a fleeing assassin stopped off in the lunchroom to grab a Coke is as bad as any Tinfoil
out there.
It was physically impossible for Baker to see anyone moving through the 'vestibule' door window if they were taking the route Oswald was supposed to be taking.
In a report written in Sept' '64, Baker actually wrote that the man he saw stood in the lunchroom was "drinking a coke". Once again, this destroys the 3 second time window established by the time trials.
Oswald reportedly had an interaction with Junior Jarman and a man who can only be Hank Norman on the first floor while he was having his lunch in the domino room. The only time this was possible was when Jarman and Norman entered the back of the building on their way up to the 5th floor. This was approximately 5 minutes before the shooting. There is no way Oswald could've 'guessed' that Jarman and Norman were in a position to be seen together from the domino room. Again, that is as bad as any Tinfoil
The lunch remains left by Bonnie Ray Williams on the 6th floor were initially discovered on top of one of the stacks of boxes that form the Sniper's Nest indicating that Bonnie Ray had eaten his lunch while he was in the Sniper's Nest waiting for the motorcade.
Arnold Rowland saw a black male in the Sniper's Nest at 12:15 pm who can only have been Bonnie Ray although Rowland severely over-estimated the age of the man he saw for which there are mitigating factors.
Around the same time Arnold saw a man with a scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor but through the most westerly set of windows.
Your interpretation of the evidence is your own business but your inability to understand why others don't agree with your interpretation or why they might have their own interpretations isn't necessarily a shortcoming in these other interpretations. Far from it.
Personally, I don't believe Oswald took the shots that killed JFK.
I don't believe he was even on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.
I believe the evidence points to Oswald being on the first floor at this time while someone else took the shots.
I believe Oswald was guilty in the sense he was somehow involved in what happened that day. I think his actions before and after the shooting point to that guilt.
I believe that when he left the TSBD building he was a fugitive on the run and that he was heading for the border and Mexico.
I believe he shot and killed Tippit.
But, I don't believe he understood that what he was involved with was the assassination of JFK and I think at some point he figured out that he had been played.
Framing Oswald was simple - leave his rifle at the crime scene.
That's all it took to pull the wool over a lot of people's eyes.
