PA PA - Bedford, 'Mr. Bones' WhtMale 30-35, 585UMPA, 30-06 rifle, gold dental wk, camping equip, Oct'58

[mysteriew]

Let's see. I got my contacts in the 70's, they were hard plastic. Soft lenses were still pretty new. I don't think that contacts were all that common in the 60's though, so contacts in the '50's would be real unusual.

Found this:
In 1929, Hungarian physician Dr. Joseph Dallos perfected a method of making molds from living eyes. This enabled the manufacture of lenses that, for the first time, conformed to the actual shape of the eye. William Feinbloom, a New York optometrist, made the first American contact lens and also introduced the use of plastic to the manufacturing process. Contact lenses were made an official part of the practice of optometry in 1945 when the American Optometric Association formally recognized contact lens fitting as an integral part of their profession.

The first soft contact lenses were developed in 1960, but weren't generally available to the public until 1971. Toric lenses for astigmatism were approved in 1978 and the first rigid gas permeable (RGP) lenses became available in 1979. The next decade saw many advances including the introduction of tinted lenses, bifocal lenses, daily wear soft lenses, disposable lenses, and extended wear RGP lenses. The 1990s saw more advances including disposable tinted lenses, daily disposable lenses and the first disposable lenses that included protection against ultraviolet sunrays.
http://www.visionrx.com/library/enc/enc_conlens.asp

The first contact lenses developed in the 1950s were hard plastic lenses that fit over the cornea. Because these lenses did not let adequate oxygen into the eye, there were problems with swelling, redness, blurry vision, and general discomfort.
http://www.healthcentral.com/encyclopedia/408/346/Contact_Lenses.html

So if they first came out in the '50's, you would have to have an optometrist that knew how to measure the eye, fit the contact, etc. And it is likely to have been expensive. It would take time for people to be trained in the technology, so was probably pretty rare for a while.
Might be a clue there to contact the optometry association and see what optometrists were proscribing them in the '50's.

 

[shadowangel]

Its known where the contacts came from, but the doctor had passed away and his records were gone.Sounds like the things were really uncomfortable. Are they prescribed for far-sightedness or just near-sightedness?

 

[mysteriew]

Its known where the contacts came from, but the doctor had passed away and his records were gone.Sounds like the things were really uncomfortable. Are they prescribed for far-sightedness or just near-sightedness?

I am not sure about back then. Now they come in bifocals. But I think back then, they may have been just for near-sightedness.

 

[mysteriew]

Its known where the contacts came from, but the doctor had passed away and his records were gone.Sounds like the things were really uncomfortable. Are they prescribed for far-sightedness or just near-sightedness?

But who would have had the money back then to be willing to put out the money for those lenses. They not only would have been uncomfortable, they would have been very expensive. The technique was new, the technology was new. Most people would have been unwilling to part with that much money for something that was so untried. It wasn't like they heard about them from a neighbor, and so had to have them.
Did he need them for vanity or for an underlying medical need?
IE was there some type of eye condition or injury to the eye which required the need for lenses?

 

[Richard]

Would a person with glasses have a difficult time aiming this rifle? Would the contacts aid in a more accurate aim?

In order to shoot a rifle accurately, you have to have the best distance vision possible - whether that means 20/20 natural vision, or vision corrected as close to 20/20 as possible using either glasses or contact lenses. As a competitive high power rifle shooter, I always wore glasses with corrective lenses, since the wearing of eye protection is recommended for safety anyway.

Something which has proven in recent years to be a problem is when shooters wear contoured/ wrap around glasses in combination with optical sights, as there is some distortion which affects sight picture. This would probably affect a shooter using open or iron sights somewhat less.

I do not know if this man had a telesopic sight on his rifle, as it was not stated in anything I have read about it. The type of rifle he had came with open sights: a rear sight on the middle of the barrel and a ramp front sight which had to be alligned with the target.

I have worn both glasses and contact lenses for many years, but I prefer wearing glasses because my eyes are sensitive and wearing the contacts and carrying around all the stuff for them was always a chore. Things like smoke or dust, or wearing them for extended periods of time caused irritation.

An advantage of wearing contacts while HUNTING is that you have clear peripheral vision and do not have to move your head around as much to see things. With glasses, you have blind spots from the frame, blurry areas of no correction, or of glare and distortion. Also, when it is raining or cold, contacts don't fog up like glasses do.

 

[mysteriew]

The lenses that were available in the '50's were different from what is available now.
From what I have read, the lenses that were available in the '50's were hard plastic. The lenses did not allow any oxygen exchange for the eye. The eye would have been prone to easy irritation, stress, and easy fatigue. He should have had limits on how long he was permitted to wear the lenses at a time.

The lenses I had in the '70's were different. They were what is called semi-permable. They allowed some oxygen exchange. I wasn't supposed to wear them but about 12 hrs at a time, though I know of others who wore them more. At the end of a long day, my eyes would feel tired, scratchy and dry.
This would have been worse with the hard plastic lenses.
There had to be some underlying reason to wear contacts for this guy. It could have been occupation related or medical.

 

[shadowangel]

The lenses that were available in the '50's were different from what is available now.
From what I have read, the lenses that were available in the '50's were hard plastic. The lenses did not allow any oxygen exchange for the eye. The eye would have been prone to easy irritation, stress, and easy fatigue. He should have had limits on how long he was permitted to wear the lenses at a time.

The lenses I had in the '70's were different. They were what is called semi-permable. They allowed some oxygen exchange. I wasn't supposed to wear them but about 12 hrs at a time, though I know of others who wore them more. At the end of a long day, my eyes would feel tired, scratchy and dry.
This would have been worse with the hard plastic lenses.
There had to be some underlying reason to wear contacts for this guy. It could have been occupation related or medical.

I tend to lean toward vanity. Taken into account with the dental work, this guy seemed to care about how he looked at one time. Maybe he was wealthy, or part of a wealthy family, and suffered some financial set-back? He may have been on some sort of "soul-searching" trip, and became despondent to the point of suicide.

Maybe we should look for any large-scale financial issues from that time?

 

[Beyond Belief]

I had hard contacts in '66. Soft contacts were on the market as experimental, they were selling for $50. I know I still have those hard contacts around here somewhere. They really were comfortable enough, but if you rubbed your eye they would come flying out. Certainly not suitable for wearing when camping. The fire from the cookstove alone would have irritated his eyes with the contacts.
I just keep wondering if there was something special about that property that brought him there. I wonder if he spent time there as a child?

I still think the best avenue for these unidentified persons is classmates.com. Someone would recognize the photos. All these people had to go to school someplace.

 

[Paradise]

I think the classmates.com idea is a really good one. I wonder if they would be willing to help?

 

[Richard]

....I still think the best avenue for these unidentified persons is classmates.com. Someone would recognize the photos. All these people had to go to school someplace.

I assisted my high school class in locating "missing" classmates a few years back. I had very little success using classmates.com. unfortunately. There were several classmates listed, but messages sent to them via the website very seldom got through to them. My guess is that they let their "membership" at classmates lapse or maybe the website simply could not handle forwarding the messages. Sadly, Classmates.com was the only place that some of my classmates names were seen. We were unable to contact them.

I actually did have two messages get through and got replies (out of about 50 messages sent). Both were sent to persons of the same last name, as people in my class. Of those two, one did not know the person I was seeking, while the other was able to provide me with some useful information.

The only messages that came to me, after I listed my name with them, were constant advertisements from the Classmates.com website itself urging me to pay them more money to be a "Gold" member. At a minimum, I should have received messages that I know were sent via Classmates.com from the reunion committee of my class.

 

[shadowangel]

After doing some digging in the archives last night, it seems the safest thing to be in the woods of PA during hunting season in the '40s and '50s was a deer! In one year, there were 15 serious shooting accidents on the opening day of hunting season.

There was one the caught my attention, though I'm not finding much more at this point. In 1945, Walter Bickel (I believe this is correct, the copy was faded) was found propped against a tree with a bullet wound to the chest. He was found about 2 miles into the woods near his Greensburg home. He had been pheasant hunting.
Though Greensburg is 80 miles west of Bedford, both are located very close to the PA Turnpike.

 

[mysteriew]

Or were they really accidents? Going hunting has long been a way to settle scores.
During that time period, many men (and some women) would have hunted regularly. The inexperienced, usually went with someone experienced.
Hunting accidents would have happened, yes. But were less likely to happen than now as most of the hunters had experience.
However, hunting accidents weren't usually given a thorough investigation- it was very conveinient to just say, it was a hunting accident.

 

[Beyond Belief]

I assisted my high school class in locating "missing" classmates a few years back. I had very little success using classmates.com. unfortunately. There were several classmates listed, but messages sent to them via the website very seldom got through to them. My guess is that they let their "membership" at classmates lapse or maybe the website simply could not handle forwarding the messages. Sadly, Classmates.com was the only place that some of my classmates names were seen. We were unable to contact them.

I actually did have two messages get through and got replies (out of about 50 messages sent). Both were sent to persons of the same last name, as people in my class. Of those two, one did not know the person I was seeking, while the other was able to provide me with some useful information.

The only messages that came to me, after I listed my name with them, were constant advertisements from the Classmates.com website itself urging me to pay them more money to be a "Gold" member. At a minimum, I should have received messages that I know were sent via Classmates.com from the reunion committee of my class.

I am talking about recognizing the photos. Everyone's got a yearbook.

 

[Richard]

...Hunting accidents would have happened, yes. But were less likely to happen than now as most of the hunters had experience.
....

I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. As a Hunter Safety Instructor for the State of Maryland, I have seen a lot of data on hunting accidents, and there are far fewer since Hunter Safety programs were initiated and made mandatory.

Experienced hunters do pass along safety information to others, but "experience" alone does not mean that the person knows the basics of safety - a misconception which, unfortunately, is written into the laws requiring evidence of either attending a Hunter Safety course, OR showing that you possessed a prior year's hunting license.

The biggest problem in hunting accidents has always been hunters mistaking other hunters for game. One major step forward in reducing hunting accidents was the "invention" and required use of flouresant or "hunter" orange colored clothing. Back in the 1940's, 50's and early 60's the color of choice for deer hunters was red. However, in low light conditions, red looks black. Flourescent Orange has been proven to be highly visable even under low light conditions.

 

[mysteriew]

I bow to someone more experienced than I.
I just know from my local area- when I hear of a hunting accident, it just usually seems like either the victim or the shooter one, was "inexperienced". And in that area, during that time period I would have to guess that there were a lot more "experienced" hunters than there would be now.

 

[Richard]

While on the subject of firearms and hunter safety, there has always been a sort of creed, repeated over the years in similar variations, for hunters and shooters to learn about the safe handling of firearms. Most "accidents" involve violation of one or more of these "rules". The below list came from a website for the Remington Company.

Of course, it is assumed that the first rule would have to be: "Don't intentionally shoot yourself or another person."


"Ten Commandments" of Firearms Safety...

1. Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.

2. Firearms should be unloaded when not actually in use.

3. Don't rely on your gun's safety.

4. Be sure of your target and what's beyond it.

5. Use proper ammunition.

6. If your gun fails to fire when the trigger is pulled, handle with care.

7. Always wear eye and ear protection when shooting.

8. Be sure the barrel is clear of obstructions before shooting.

9. Don't alter or modify your gun and have it serviced regularly.

10. Learn the mechanical and handling characteristics of the firearm you are using.

 

[shadowangel]

And the Army's unwritten firearm commandment....

"Don't point your weapon at anything you don't want dead".

 

[Richard]

And the Army's unwritten firearm commandment....

"Don't point your weapon at anything you don't want dead".

The Marine Corps has a similar commandment:

"When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not your friend."

 

[shadowangel]

Accidents aside, what caught my attention about Mr. Bickel was the fact that he was found propped up against a tree, and that the time seemed early in the year for anyone to be out with anything high-powered or longe-range. I've been trying to locate the article again.

 

[Richard]

Accidents aside, what caught my attention about Mr. Bickel was the fact that he was found propped up against a tree, and that the time seemed early in the year for anyone to be out with anything high-powered or longe-range. I've been trying to locate the article again.

I have a recollection of a similar case, but I think that it was from the mid 1960's. About a hunter found sitting with his back to a tree and dead from a bullet to the chest.

What I remember about that one was that investigators felt that the bullet came from a .44 carbine fired from some distance away, and that the slug was falling rapidly at the time it hit the man. This theory was formed because the man was facing a hill and it was hit from the front while sitting on his deer stand. The shooter was on the other side of the hill, shooting up at a deer. It was felt that the trajectory of that type of round (large bullet, small amount of powder) would cause the bullet to fall quickly in a parabola arc. Thus, if the shooter shot over the deer, he may have cleared the top of the hill, but the bullet coming down on the other side hit the other hunter.

That was the conclusion, anyway. I never saw any actual ballistic evidence to support it.