You make a rather seismic semantic shift here. First, his ownership of the M-C doesn't "prove" he took the shots. No, it certainly doesn't. Next, its has "nothing to do" with whether he took the shots. WHAT???
If the M-C had been owned by Linnie Mae Randle, it would be far less likely that Oswald took the shots. His ownership of the rifle doesn't prove he took the shots but makes it FAR more likely that he did. Even your imaginary conspirators who planted the rifle recognized this, or they would have planted a more plausible assassination weapon. They planted Oswald's rifle because it would make the conclusion that their desired patsy took the shots far more probable.
I understand what you're saying and maybe I could have found a different phrasing of words that made my point in a way that wasn't open to various interpretations.
Oswald either took the shots or he didn't, it's binary, on or off, yes or no.
His ownership of the rifle doesn't make it "FAR more likely" that he took the shots, he either took the shots or he didn't.
It makes it far more likely TO BE
ASSUMED THAT HE TOOK THE SHOTS.
That is how framing someone works.
If the ownership of the rifle was traced to Linnie Mae Randle it would have been FAR more difficult to frame Oswald with it.
By leaving Oswald's rifle there everyone would make the obvious assumption that it was Oswald who took the shots and that is exactly what happened.
The important thing is you've recognised that Oswald taking the shots is not the fact that many Nutters seem to think it is. It's just a theory. That is the point I was making
On a different note, I was quite disappointed that you bailed on the topic of this thread.
You laid out a challenge with specific criteria. I presented a plausible scenario that fitted the criteria. You made a couple of weak comments then disappeared.
I thought it was a good topic for a thread and could have been a useful discussion.