"He worked at the place the shots were fired from. He owned a rifle. He took it to work that day and used it. His rifle fired the bullets."
All of the points you make are open to debate.
Not really. Not to rational debate anyway. People can make any claim about anything. That's not the same thing as being open to debate.
"For example, when his wife Marina was questioned, she was unable to identify the rifle as Oswald's."
Citation?
"She later changed her testimony in this, as in many other matters."
Marina has consistently said that Oswald did it. Even now, when conspiracists have surrounded her for years and convinced her that something else was going on, she still insists that Oswald did it. Because she was there and she knew the facts, and knew him.
"There's more evidence that Oswald was not the shooter, than evidence that he was."
No there isn't. Show me some evidence that Oswald was not the shooter. Again, someone making a claim is not evidence.
Marina has consistently said that Oswald did it, at least after she spent lots of time being interrogated by the FBI. But again, her initial reaction was not that.
Show me some evidence that Oswald was not the shooter.Well, that isn't the way it works. The accused doesn't have to prove innocence, the state has to prove guilt. But how about this: two women who worked at the depository ran down the stairs from one of the upper floors after the shooting. Oswald was found in the second floor lunch room by a policeman and one of the managers of the depository. Oswald would have to come down that staircase to get to the lunchroom, but neither woman saw him. Did he simply materialize?