In principle it contains 2 separate questions of different difficulty: The first question: "Was it the Stratfordman ?" seems incomparably easier to be answered in the negative than the second question "If not, Who was it then ?"
After 20 years of intensive reading and understanding, doubts about "William Shakspere (Stratford)" as the author of "Hamlet" have never abated but steadily increased. He cannot have been little more than a front for a literary historical conspiracy. It is, under no circumstances, a "conspiracy theory".
There is a genius at work in the "true Shakespeare", but it's not the Stratfordman! It seems not difficult to predict that the Stratford Dogma is not tenable on the long run. The Dogma will become history, sooner or later. It will make room for a paradigm shift as soon as the answer to the second more difficult unthinkable question will prevail: Christopher Marlowe as the single, most plausible solution to the myriad of historical, literary and contextual, pschological, social, forensic, religious, judicial and other inconsistencies.
The authorship issue results from the compelling logic of a complex literary-historical conspiracy problem of an endangered poet-genius, artistically and intellectually [too] far ahead of his time!