Three (if that's what it was) loud noises became increasing "salient" as the sounds unfolded. The first few loud noises weren't "salient" to everyone.
On what evidence do you base that statement? Name one witness who did not notice the first shot - or any of the shots. Only a few identified it as a rifle shot, but they could not help but hear that "horrible, ear-shattering noise" (as Mary Woodward described it).
They were also in a distraction setting with peak concentration on the motorcade at the time of the first shot.
On what evidence do you base that statement? Name one witness who "dismissed" the first loud noise from their mind. Do you think that hearing another similar noise 4 seconds later that they could not remember having heard the first?
While it's true they could not fail to hear three shots (if there were, in fact, three shots), it doesn't mean it was stored in memory equally. For some of the witnesses, their perception and retention of initial events (some termed the first shot as a backfire or firecracker) could be affected by a greater concentration on the latter shots and things occurring visually up to and including the shock of the head shot and the dramatic Jackie/Clint potential tragedy.
And if you actually had evidence that this occurred at all, let alone that it affected the vast majority of witnesses, I could take it seriously. But as it is, it is just made-up - speculation. Think about it: if these witnesses had trouble recalling the pattern of three loud ear-shattering noises spaced 1...2.......3 why did they recall 1.......2...3 in so many different, consistent ways? ie:
- Many witnesses, without quantifying the spacing, said that they heard a loud noise and then a pause then two in rapid succession.
- John Wiseman heard a loud noise - then ran from the front door of the Sheriff's building to the corner of Houston and Main (half the width of the building) and then hears 2 more shots (John Wiseman 19 H 535)
- Wm. Greer stated that the second followed the first by three or four seconds and ?The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other, but I don?t recollect just how much, how many seconds were between the two. I couldn?t really say.? 2 H 118.
- Sorrels: ?There was to me about twice as much time between the first and second shots as there was between the second and third shots.? 7 H 345.
- Bowers: ?I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together?. 6 H 287.
- Paternostro: ?He said he estimated several seconds, possibly four or five or more, elapsed between the first report and the second and third reports?... ?then when the other reports followed in quick succession?CE 2105, 24 H 536.
Spectators in the stands at the Boston Marathon Bombing barely react until the second bomb goes off.
How is that relevant? As I understand it, the two bombs were separated by a city block and were 12 seconds apart, so it is understandable that people near the site of the second bomb may not have reacted to the first. In any event, few spectators on Elm St. reacted to the first shot. They did not react until after the second or third shots.
This does not mean that the sound of the shots, or of the bombs, was not etched in the witness' memories.
