It is amazing that our resident contrarians will go round and round down the rabbit hole on every subject. Here the objective of any conspirators to frame Oswald is to link him to the rifle as definitively as possible. Why use an alias in that scenario to obscure the purchase? The planners are not attempting to hide Oswald's purchase of the weapons, but to the contrary link him to the weapon. No need for any alias in that context. In contrast, if Oswald intends to use the rifle to commit a crime, then he has every incentive to put as much distance between himself and the purchase of that weapon as he can. So he has every incentive to obscure the trail as much as possible. The use of an alias in that context is understandable. This is not rocket science unless someone is playing defense attorney in which it matters less what the truth is than to create doubt by any means.
This line of logic that the use of an alias is consistent with Oswald's desire to distance himself from the rifle and inconsistent with a desire to link him to the rifle doesn't prove Oswald purchased the rifle (the evidence does that) but it lends support to the LNer narrative and undercuts the conspiracy narrative. Contrarians just ignore this. This is all just assumptions in a contrarian world in which no fact that they don't want to accept can ever be proven. Most amusing in their Alice-in-Wonderland approach is that they refuse to even entertain the actual implications of their own counternarrative having any validity. Much less address it. The game begins and ends by attempting to create any false doubt of Oswald's guilt. The absurdity of the counternarrative that must result as a direct consequence to explain events if the evidence against Oswald has been fabricated is never a consideration in reaching any conclusion about underlying events. For example, if there is debate that Scenario A has occurred by claiming instead that Scenario B occurred, and we know that this alternative scenario that event C and D must have happened as consequence of B having validity, then we can look to whether C and D actually happened or make any sense given the avowed purpose to access the validity of alternative B. Contrarians never reach this step. They focus solely on Scenario A.
