Cones and Pyramids as Ambiently Powered Energy Manipulators

One complication with the field of emerging technology, destined to be the basis of tomorrow’s science, is that it is too big. It has so many facets that every once in a while, worthwhile concepts get forgotten as diverse new matters continuously attract our attention. Pyramids and cones illustrate this point. Both they and other structures “process”, control, or otherwise manipulate at least one form of ambient energy without the use of any other energy input. As a group, all of such items may be referred to as ambiently powered energy manipulators (APEMs)

This article is intended to discuss the current state of knowledge relative to these devices. To avoid confusion between such structures and those which do not have any significant or material influence upon any ambient energy, any subsequent reference to either pyramids or cones in this discussion is intended to designate energy-affecting pyramids and cones unless a contrary meaning is clearly intended. The latter may be referred to as “APEM type” structures.

Pyramids, as are significant in connection with tomorrow’s science, are still “in”, that is in the sense that there is a substantial amount of current references to them, even though they seem to have lost some of their attention-getting ability. On the contrary, cones seem to be gradually slipping into the forgotten past. Stein’s justifiably popular book Mind Machines You Cap Build (1992 G. Harry Stein, Top of the Mountain Publishing) illustrates this point. It has an entire chapter based on pyramids, and also references the pioneering work of Dr. Flanagan in this field, but it says nary a word about those closely related structures – cones.

Current knowledge about cones is very different than the present information about pyramids. The energy-affecting cones of recent interest undoubtedly have an unrecognized precedent in some structure or structures of ancient history and are capable of being compared with the pyramids of Egypt No one seems concerned that this is probably the case. As a practical matter, current knowledge and recent past interest in cones appears to be almost entirely based on the work of a famous dowser, a Mr. Verne Cameron.

The restricted amount known to the general public relative to his activity with these structures is almost completely limited to the information reported in a series of periodicals entitled “The Pyramid Guide”. Fifty five issues of this publication were published from Sept. 1972 to September- October 1981 by various entities starting with an associate of Mr. Cameron, Mr. Bill Cox. To a very limited extent, the information gleaned from these publications, along with a supplemental discussion of Mr. Cameron’s work with cones, appears in the booklet The Cameron Aurameter published by Borderlands. Mr. Cameron died in 1974, prior to the issuance of these publications.

To put it mildly, both of these sources of information have serious limitations. They clearly omit much which one would anticipate that they might contain. Although The Pyramid Guide is saturated with materials pertaining to pyramids which affect energy, in going over all of the issues of it, the writer has been unable to find a single reference to Dr. Flanagan. Neither does it contain many other bits of reasonably common information concerning present knowledge of pyramids. When this is considered ·in connection with the relatively limited and apparently incomplete discussions of cones found in this publication, a person cannot help but wonder if there is information about cones which was known to Mr. Cameron (and probably others) which is now lost.

Both energy-affecting pyramids and cones are significant because they act as “concentrators” of one or more not yet identified forms of radiation. For convenience of reference, the energy or energies affected by these devices are subsequently referred to as a single form of energy even though there is a reasonable chance that this may be in error. These cones and pyramids do not originate any such energy; they merely “gather” it and either hold it, accumulate it, or send it on its way. This is usually as a beam or column in either the original or a modified form.

As a result of this, it is clear that both types of structures can be used as internal chambers containing concentrated energy or as sources of relatively concentrated accumulations or beams of radiated energy. In both cases, the energy may or may not be used to accomplish a recognizable result in accordance with the characteristics of what or who is contacted by the energy, the manner in which the energy is applied, and the nature of the specific form of energy present at the time something is contacted with it.

The range of utilities attributed to the energy associated with both pyramids and cones is too extensive to be discussed in detail in an article of moderate length. The list is so extensive, it is almost hard to believe. While cones have been used for less reasons than pyramids, it is normally considered that anything which can be treated in one of them can also be similarly treated in the other. These APEM devices have been used for such diverse purposes as sharpening razor blades, inducing mental reactions, preserving animate bodies and foods, upgrading cheap whiskey and tobacco, and affecting the growth and longevity of both plants and lower life forms such as bacteria and fungi. No references have been located in preparing this discussion which fairly or reasonably suggest that they may be considered as medical devices.

In general, most of the accomplishments reported as being achieved with either pyramids or cones are what those believing in only traditional science would either: (1) classify as belonging in the realm of science fiction instead of the real world; or (2) ignore because they do not “fit” within currently accepted technology. All too often, believers in non-traditional science, on the basis of their enthusiasm, grasp onto beneficial results that may not exist, while non-believers reject unquestionable results on the basis that they have, and will continue to, reject all that is associated with the occult.

Up to the present, the benefits associated with energy-affecting cones and pyramids have not been universally acknowledged. This is because of a lack of a simple, objective manner of measuring either the energy present at a specific time and location, or what in fact happens whenever one of these devices is used. Although instances such as the sharpness of a razor blade having been treated in a pyramid can accurately be determined with current, generally accepted techniques, such items are either relatively difficult to measure or do not seem to be otherwise satisfactory to gauge the energy or energies affiliated with cones and pyramids. As a consequence, there is often a lack of adequate, incontrovertible information as is needed to expand the closed minds of society that have been created by religion and established technology.

Some will object to this last conclusion. In so doing, they can be expected to correctly indicate that Mr. Cameron used a psychograph of his invention – the so called Cameron Aurarneter – to locate energies associated with cones and other items. Unfortunately, information obtained by dowsing and other psychographic techniques is not yet regarded as being incontrovertible, even by those with knowledge in various branches of occult phenomena.

It is to be anticipated that in time, reliable, easily used methods of indicating the relative strength of the energy associated with a specific APEM will be developed or recognized. At present, it is considered that devices that are moved by mental energy in psychokenesis will most likely be · the initial structures used in determining the relative strengths of those energies associated with pyramids and cones that are used for different purposes.

Although it is inherent that all energy can be used either beneficially or detrimentally, the literature relative to energy affecting pyramids and cones significantly avoids discussing material that has produced detrimental results. This seems wrong. Care should always be taken when trying an unknown energy for a new purpose, as to make sure that there are no significantly undesired results. The latter statement applies regardless of whether a cone or a pyramid is used to provide energy to something within the structure itself, or when directing a column or beam toward something located externally of the structure. As used in this sentence, “thing” designates humans as well as other living and
non-living items.

When it is necessary to use a container to hold something to be treated, either in a cone or pyramid or by a beam of energy from either of these, the container should be at least partially transparent to whatever energy or energies which may be present. Currently, such transparency is best determined on an empirical basis. As a matter of routine, it is considered best to avoid using imperforate containers formed of common metals, certain types of glass (particularly lead crystal glass), and materials known to be impermeable to common microwaves.

Most individuals will consider that it is self-evident that a beam or column of energy from a pyramid or cone, employed so as to apply a beam or column .of energy to whatever is being treated, should be located where the beam will engage it. Under normal circumstances, this will be along the axis of the device. This can be at either extremity of the cone or pyramid or within the structure itself. Complications can arise in connection with this when efforts are made to direct the radiation by either reflecting it, confining it, or having it moved along a conductor.

It seems to be uniformly agreed that whatever is being exposed to the collection or accumulation of energy within a pyramid or cone should be located along or reasonably near the axis of the device about a third of the way from the bottom of the structure in order to achieve as much benefit from the energy “processed” within such a structure as is reasonably possible. This view is apparently based on both simple geometry and experience.

Many other devices or structures do the same or nearly the same thing as cones and pyramids. They also operate in about the same manner in which pyramids and cones operate. These include a series of three-dimensional structures of various types, as well as many two-dimensional representations of unmodified pyramids, cones, spirals and other structures. Also included are nonstructural symbols and other representations. As a group, the latter demonstrate the concept in magic in which a symbol is a surrogate for whatever it represents.

Some apparently take the view that all things associated with pyramids, cones, and their equivalents are bad because in a sense, all of them involve the unknown, the occult, or other various forms of magic. This is nonsense. All energy-affecting pyramids, cones, and two and three-dimensional structures (as well as representations which are related to one of them) operate using mechanisms which are “obscure” to currently accepted technology. Fortunately, it is not necessary to understand how all of these things “operate,” as they are used in order to produce beneficial results.

A discussion as to the employment of pyramids can be easily extended to a detailed consideration of the historical pyramids in Egypt There is no point in encumbering this document with a mass of insignificant material relating to these historical marvels. Common belief largely based on this material currently holds that a “modern” four sided pyramid normally is useful only when: (1) it has the relative proportions of the Great Pyramid in Egypt; (2) its axis is vertical; and (3) two of its sides are aligned toward true north. The first of these “requirements” is significant in that it relates the manner in which it is preferable to construct both cones and pyramids.

Stein’s text, along with many other materials, indicate that when a four sided pyramid is “properly” proportioned in a traditional manner, the angles between its opposed sides and its bottom are as indicated in the accompanying Fig. 1. This Fig.1 is a side elevational view of a hollow pyramid [designated as Fig. 1.]; Fig. 2 is a top plan view of this same pyramid; and Fig. 3 is a cross sectional view of it taken at line 3-3 of Fig. 1. It is noted that a sectional view taken at line 1-1 in Fig. 2 will correspond to Fig. 1. It will alao be apparent that another sectional view appearing as Fig.3 could be taken along a line passing through the undesignated diagonal in Fig. 2.

From these views, it will be obvious that in a pyramid proportioned in a classic manner, both the interior and exterior angles between the sides and the side edges as shown in Figs. 1 and 3 are 77.43 degrees and 97.16 degrees, respectively. This results in the angle between the axis of the pyramid and the sides and side edges of the pyramid when a plane is passed through the axis of the pyramid and then rotated varying so as to be both above and below 90 degrees. According to The Pyramid Guide& it appears to be important for the internal angle in a plane passing through the axis of the cone to be 90 degrees as shown in Fig. 4. Apparently neither this statement relative to cones nor the beliefs as to the criticality of pyramid proportions is to be taken as incontrovertible gospel.

The sentence “The Pyramid prototype’s dimensions and angle can vary substantially and still show positive effects” on page 4 of the
September 1972 issue of The Pyramid Guide raises a question as to the materiality of the internal angles at the tops of cones and pyramids. The maximum and minimum angles between the edges at the top of a common pyramid are so closely related to the top angle in a cone as to suggest that minor variations in angles at the apex of either type of structure are not materially significant.

Confirmation of this is, to a degree, supplied by a statement on page 37 of The Cameron Aurameter indicating that if the top angle in a cone is less than 90 ·, this results in the energy beam off of the top of the cone dispersing. If the top angle is greater than 90 ·, then the beam of energy tends to come together adjacent to the cone rather than to extend outwardly as a column having a unitary cross-sectional configuration. These statements are highly suggestive of a flashlight focusing, or adjusting a watering nozzle on a hose.

Because of the relationship between various different pyramid and cone type APEMs, it seems highly probable that the shapes of energy beams from pyramids will also vary. This occurs in accordance with the changes in the angles at the tops of the pyramids in approximately the same manner in which they vary when the internal angle of a pyramid is altered. Since the angles between the sides and side edges and the axis of a pyramid always differ at different locations relative to the axis, on the basis of Cameron’s experience with cones, it is expected that tightly coherent columns of energy cannot. he obtained from pyramids.

At this time, this does not appear to be important. It is easy to speculate that comparatively minor variation in the angles at the tops of pyramids and cones will not result in geometric changes, which would materially affect the ability of these APEMs to gather or collect energy and to then “process” it. Presently, there is not much information known relative to this issue.

The close relationship between the angles at the tops of cones and pyramids is even more apparent when it is considered that both types of structures can be formed of the same materials and still be operative. In a back-handed way, this is indicated by the statement “Exhaustive tests made by Verne L. Cameron prove that the Pyramid form can be made from a variety of materials; cardboard, wire, thread, metal, etc., though a cardboard cone is worthless as an energy accumulator (unless covered with a metal foil or a similar material).” This statement appears as part of the discussion containing the previous quotation from The Pyramid Guide. The word “accumulator” is clearly used in this quotation in the sense that the word was once commonly used to designate anything which would receive and hold any form of energy. Thus, everyday electric batteries were once commonly described as “accumulators.”

In spite of the clarity of this last quotation, it is believed that it should be accepted with caution. Although Mr. Cameron stated that cones could be made of various materials, it seems that he experimented almost exclusively with cones made of common sheet iron, most likely galvanized sheet iron.

There are serious questions which have yet to be answered relative to the nature of the radiation or energy significant in connection with pyramids and cones, and also, how the details of constructing any such device can affect or effect the energy associated with it. Unexpected results are to be anticipated in using different materials, especially uncommon materials, when constructing these devices. In spite of this, there is more than adequate reason to believe that the energies “processed” with both cones and pyramids constructed of the same or similar materials in a reasonably related manner would be essentially the same.

So far, no one has done a decent preliminary investigation as to what the performances of cones and pyramids will be if they are constructed of materials such as iron, lead, metal or ceramic magnets, or other more “exotic” materials such as mu metal. Only one frustratingly incomplete reference has been located. This reference discusses making the walls of an energy-affecting pyramid with alternating layers of metal and non-metal, such as the one used by Dr. Reich in his well-known orgone accumulator. There is a high probability that an energy-affecting cone or pyramid can be built so as to more or less act as such an accumulator.

There is an isolated report of an enclosed copper lined, nonmetallic pyramid which is large enough to hold a prone human body which illustrates this point. This structure has been indicated to be so “active” when lined with copper that no one can sleep within it. Unfortunately, the report on this device did not clarify what was meant by “active.” We are to presume the term was used to indicate that the energy present within the pyramid had an effect on the mental process of the person within it and was not intended to directly describe any energy associated with the pyramid. Reasonably clear evidence of this type strongly tends to confirm the existence of a relationship between Dr. Reich’s orgone devices and pyramids and cones.

Unfortunately, one has to speculate as to the full meaning of the previous quotation from The Pyramid Guide relating to the materials
which may be used in constructing cones and pyramids. By indicating that a pyramid form can be constructed from wire, the author of this quotation indulged in the frustrating precise indefiniteness often found in patents. Was this an intended reference to a frame outlining the edges of a pyramid or was it a reference to a pyramid in which at least the sides were formed of wire, such as that found in a wire fence?

Either meaning is possible. Useful energy affecting and effecting pyramids have been constructed of materials containing relatively small perforations, panels containing access holes, and structural parts, so as to consist entirely of a self-supporting framework outlining the shape of a pyramid . Such frames seem to be essentially symbolic in nature in view of their limited tangible physical structures.

Because of its shape, a frame cannot accurately portray a cone in the manner that a pyramid can be delineated by a framework. No one has yet discussed forming cones with holes allowing access to materials within their interiors. This is most likely because a comparatively large hole in the wall of a cone would inherently interfere with the curved exterior which characterizes any cone in the area where the cone is located. It is considered that relatively small perforations in the surface of a cone are not considered to have this effect

Pyramids and cones are employed both with and without their bottoms being deliberately covered or closed off by a supporting surface. Although little has been written on this topic, there is one report indicating that the energy given off by a cone with a closed bottom was about equal to that given off by three cones having open bottoms. This report is so deficient in detail that one hesitates to draw any conclusions from it.

The answer as to whether it is or isn’t advisable to close off the bottom of a pyramid or cone in a specific manner is probably best related to the intended use of the structure. One can anticipate different results depending upon whether the energy associated with these devices is to be used internally or externally and whether or not they are to be used when connected in series or parallel.

There are usually no material problems in connection with the use of the energies associated with pyramids or cones. As previously mentioned, there are only two significant manners in which these structures are commonly employed. In one manner of use, the intended recipient of the radiation can merely be placed in the columnar energy passing along the axis of a cone or pyramid. Although this energy is usually only thought of as being emitted from the apex of a pyramid or cone, there is good reason to conclude that at least a variation of it also extends through this type of structure and out of its bottom. Unfortunately, nothing has been found which adequately clarifies the accuracy of this last statement..

In the second common manner of use, whatever is treated with one of these devices is supported in or passed through a central region in the interior of a pyramid or cone in a convenient manner. As previously noted, it is usually considered that the central portion of a cone or pyramid is along the structure’s axis about l/3 of the distance upward from the bottom of the structure.

The results achieved with both pyramids and cones are primarily related to the specific ambient energy or energies normally contacting with these devices at any time, and also to the manners in which any and all such energies move relative to them. Both of these matters presently involve more speculation than fact. Various individuals believe that their views on both of these points are grounded in unchangeable fact. Any position of this type is in error.

The variations in discussions of antidotal experiences with APEMs make it clear that the nature of any energy associated with
a cone or pyramid, and how such energy moves in either of these devices, is debatable. The quantity of such energy associated with
these structures unquestionably varies in accordance with ambient conditions.

With any cone, at least one form of ambient energy is attracted to and flows along the smooth surface of the cone more or less as a stream of water is guided by a smooth surface. This moving energy seems to spiral around the surface toward the apex of the cone where the energy tends to coalesce as it passes from the apex. Although it is usually considered that this energy is in the form of a beam or shaft of energy going outward from the cone’s apex along it’s axis, this is only in the case with a 90 • cone. Earlier, it was indicated that with other conical structures, the energy flow differs to a minor degree from the apex of a traditional right angle cone. For practical purposes, the energy emitted from non-90 degree cones can be classified as being in the form of a beam or column even though, from a technical standpoint, this is not exactly the case.

Within any such energy beam stream, the energy is reported as twisting in the direction as shown by the arrow in Fig. 4. As previously indicated, some suggest that this beam also extends through and out the bottom of a cone. A person cannot help but speculate that whether or not the energy twists in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction (as viewed from its top) is a function that could be due to one of a multitude of factors. These factors include such diverse items as whether the cone is in the northern or southern hemisphere, the details of the earth’s magnetic field at the location where the cone is located, ambient electromagnetic fields, and the like.

Mr. Cameron apparently located a cylinder of energy around a beam coming from a cone, the beam spaced slightly more than a foot from the tip of the cone. This isolated disclosure is rather interesting in that it suggests that the air around a beam coming from a cone may act more or less as a dielectric separating the beam from an induced collection of energy. In a crude sense, this can be compared with the operation of a conventional capacitor.

In most regards, there is a dearth of reliable information relative to the movement of energy affected by a pyramids. The limited knowledge relative to the collection and movement of energy in connection with this type of APEM is that the energy passing from a pyramid spirals off of the top of the structure. The energy then becomes a gradually diverging beam which twists in the opposite direction away from the energy passing from the cone. No one seems to have an explanation for this.

Because of the close similarity between pyramids and cones, it is believed that the energy movements relative to, and within each, should be thought of as being governed by the same considerations. As a consequence of the variation in the internal angles between the sides and side edges of a pyramid around its apex, it would be inappropriate to consider that they are identical as far as energy flow is concerned. One can safely assume that such differences that exist between the energy movements in these different structures are essentially differences in degree and not in kind.

The existence of the spiraling columns or beams of energy from the tips of both pyramids and cones is seemingly confined by reports of locating two pyramids so that their axes are vertical and aligned and so that the bottom pyramid is inverted from its normal position and located with its base matched up against the base of the top pyramid as indicated in Fig. 5. Not surprisingly, when they are located, the beams from both are described as canceling each other out. Since the energy beams from pyramids are reported to “react” in this manner, it is logical to assume that the related beams from cones would off-set each other in the same manner.

Although little is known relative to the movement of energy collected and “processed” by cones and pyramids, it is interesting to note that a procedure has been developed for controlling the spiraling of a beam off of the end of a single pyramid or cone. A composite structure for
this purpose can consist of a small, centrally located beam source and a series of other cones or pyramids located in a path around this beam source at gradually increasing distances from the central structure, which defines at least a part of a spiral. If all of these cones or pyramids
are pointed in the same direction, a composite spiraling beam will be produced.

Contrary to common belief, there appears to be nothing overtly critical about a pyramid or a cone being located in a vertical position. There are a limited number of references clearly disclosing successful uses of these devices in other positions. Such disclosures directly contradict the mystical aura based on the Egyptian pyramids being aligned with the Earth’s magnetic field. This mystique has infected the entire field
of pyramids and cones. Unfortunately, these recent disclosures have not been strong enough to destroy this aura. Many in the field of borderland technology or tomorrow’s science find that it is easy to forget that customs and traditional beliefs should not be automatically accepted as correct, but should be thoroughly investigated to see if they have been founded on experience.

The issue of whether cones and pyramids can be oriented forms a part of the more basic question as to the precise nature of the energy or energies “processed” using both pyramids and cones. There seems to be a limited degree of consensus on this point. In speaking of the energy given off by cones, Mr. Cameron described this energy as an electricity having an “exceedingly short wave length” and indicates that “I’m fairly certain this energy operates in the gap of unknown rays just above x-ray” (p. 3, Nov. 1972 Issue The Pyramid Guide).

There is no reason why these statements cannot be applied as equally to pyramids as they have been to cones. Most of those who have seriously considered the nature of the energies associated with pyramids and cones take the position that the energies or forces used with both are, or are in the nature of, extremely high frequency microwaves. No one seems to question that they are of an electromagnetic character or that they are of such restricted magnitude that in order to properly refer to them, one must use the term “subtle energy”.

Unfortunately, no one seems to have thoroughly considered the possibility that the energies associated with cones and pyramids are probably not uniform and that they most likely consist of radiation either falling within more than one restricted range or “band” of frequencies extending over a comparatively large band. As previously noted, it is logical to expect significant variation depending on the material or materials used in forming pyramids and cones and whether or not they are perforated.

The preceding conclusions are supported by the fact that in many ways, the energies associated with pyramids and cones act more or less like commonly known microwaves. Several points are worth noting: that they are often compared with light, that they can pass through most common materials, that they can be reflected, and that they will follow the surfaces of common wires and cords when concentrated into a beam or column. This last statement is especially apparent when these energy conveying members are formed of an electrically conducting material.

As with so-called “Eeman screens,” these energies from pyramids, cones, and other APEMs are capable of being conveyed by or along both organic and metallic lines attached to one of their surfaces. The disclosures about the precise methods of attaching these conductors (which have been located in preparation of this article) leave much to be desired. It seems that any method of attachment which reasonably resembles a traditional electrical connection can be satisfactorily used.

Since the apex of a cone or pyramid is a point, it is impossible from a practical point of view to connect a conductor so that it only conveys that energy which is normally considered to be given off at the pointed top of such a structure. There seems to be no question except for the fact that when a conductor is attached to the exterior of an APEM immediately adjacent to its apex, it performs satisfactorily when it is not connected to or in contact with the interior of the structure. Since in the usual circumstance, the conductor, used with a cone or pyramid, can be formed of a useful material, something which has not previously been considered must be involved in connection with the operation of both APEMs and conductors useful with them.

This dual utility of various materials rather clearly suggests that the operation of a cone or pyramid involves both the movement and accumulation of energy along the surfaces of the structure and the radiation of this energy from these surfaces. A corollary of this is that this energy does not normally move around the rather sharp edges found on pyramids and cones having open bottoms.

Any questions regarding this last conclusion can be resolved by considering that if the energy associated with such a device did move around such delineations, that in effect, the energy would “short out” and tend to be the same on both the interior and exterior of a cone or pyramid.

Because of this, it is safe to conclude that the energy discharge usually associated with a pyramid or cone is probably concentrated around but not exactly at the tip of the structure, and that this energy falls off around the tip rapidly in accordance with the distance from the tip. This decrease in energy emission in accordance With the distance from an apex is also in accordance with some sort of an inverse square relationship.

This explains the usability of all sorts of connections of conductors in close proximity to the tips of cones and pyramids. It is likely that there is some energy loss at any such connection which can be minimized by hat-like terminal elements on connectors which fit very closely against the tip and the adjacent surface of any pyramid and cone. Such terminals can be provided with conventional attachment means for use in securing them to an appropriate conductor. They can also be shaped so as to “nest” against another similar terminal in connecting two or more APEMs in series as subsequently discussed.

From the fact that different “feelings” are achieved with different kinds of conductors in Eeman-type devices, it seems clear that conductors of different materials must convey different “fractions” or aspects of a composite collection of energy emitted by a pyramid or cone. Unfortunately, little has been published relative to the “selectivity” of different common metallic and organic conductors used with these APEMs.

In a generalized and vague manner, this view as to the composite character of the radiation associated with APEMs is supported by the nearly concurrent recognition of different components in magnetic fields. With one exception, an extension of this previous sentence is beyond the intended scope of this article. This exception primarily pertains to the use of APEMs in urban environments. Pyramids and cones are often believed not to operate in a “proper” manner in the presence of the larger electromagnetic fields associated with an electrically oriented society.

The existing evidence indicates that, without a doubt, the energy or those energies which are significant with cones and pyramids must be substantially similar to one or more previously recognized and named energies. To be even moderately complete, this discussion pertaining to the nature of the energy associated with the operation of cones and pyramids should include a discussion which relates them to energies
of various different names, names which are associated with different creative individuals who have been involved with future science. There are far too many names for them all to be discussed in detail in this article. Several previously recognized energies are significant enough to be mentioned in this article.

Orgone energy as identified by Dr. Reich has been previously mentioned. The disclosure by Dr. Heironymus concerning how energy can be carried by conductors between flat plates to grow plants in darkness is considered to be particularly applicable to this discussion of cones and pyramids (Journal of Borderland Research, Sept-Oct 1990, p. 22). To some, the work of Dr. Heironymus will suggest that any surface, including that of a flat plate, will to a degree simulate the ability of a pyramid or cone to gather or accumulate energy. In addition, isn’t it
obvious that metallic -especially copper- pyramids or cones can be substituted for the flat plates used by Dr. Heironymus?

No one should be surprised that both pyramids and cones have been used along side of one another more or less in parallel in the manner
indicated in the top plan views identified as Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. Fig. 8 can be taken as is a side elevational view of the structure shown in either Fig. 6 or 7. Composites of the types shown in Figs. 6 and 7 are often constructed so as to be sufficiently small as to be capable of supporting items such as a pan or tray. The rows of cones shown in Fig. 7 can be offset so that the individual cones are more closely fitted together than shown in Fig. 7. Alternately, in the Fig. 7 structure small cones or pyramids can be fitted in the spaces between the cones illustrated.

It is important to note that energy affecting cones and pyramids have also been used with their axes in alignment in such a manner that they can be considered to be positioned in series with one another. This is illustrated by Figs. 9 and 10; they are the top plan and side elevational views, respectively, in a series of pyramids located one above another with their axes in vertical alignment Figs. 11 and 12 are corresponding views of a series of cones similarly located so as to be vertically aligned with one another.

Cones and pyramids located as shown in Figs 9 to 12 are normally, but not always, used by having the exterior of the tip of one APEM connected as shown by a rod, electric conductor, or the like to the exterior of the next adjacent unit In any such a series, care must be taken
when arranging it, so as to avoid “shorting out” an APEM by connecting its opposed surfaces with a conductor. This theory, or a related series assembly theory, is that the total energy given off by the top or tip end of the composite device will be greater than can be achieved
by either a single pyramid or a cone. Because of a lack of a good objective method of measuring the top emanations from both, one cannot be certain that this is correct.

No discussion of “basic” energy-affecting pyramids and cones can be considered complete unless it is broadened to include the principally known manner in which these devices can be modified, changed, or represented without losing their ability to “operate.” Equally necessary in the discussion is including easily overlooked relationships between these devices and some prior related structures. The significant variants and known “relatives” of simple cone and pyramid structures as described are, in many respects, more interesting that the basic structures themselves. They are of two distinct types: ( 1) tangible or physical structures; and (2) symbolic devices. It is not necessary to be a genius in order to associate traditional magic with the purely symbolic aspects of both types of structures and devices indicated.

A minor degree of semantic confusion or overlap occurs in association with these designations. To exist, a symbolic device has to have a degree of form or substance and as a result, inherently has to possess a physical character. Conversely, a traditional type of tangible or physical structure cannot avoid including whatever symbolism may be associated with its construction.

For the purposes of this discussion, it is assumed that the physical character of an essentially symbolic device is so small that it can be justifiably neglected. At the same time, magic associated with the symbolism of a conventional type of physical structure is so small that it can also be justifiably overlooked, as well. Even if this type of distinction is incorrect, in an abstract sense it seems necessary to recognize the realities of the world.

With all of the tangible or physical variants of pyramids and cones, there are two underlying issues: 1) does a particular device have to have at least a minor superficial resemblance to a structure which could be recognized as a pyramid or cone on the basis of the preceding discussion and 2) does it appear to do more or less the 15 Fig. 16 same thing as such a prior device in about the same way that the prior device is believed to operate? If the answers to these are yes, then the particular device can be considered to be an “equivalent” of an established cone or pyramid. No such equivalent need produce exactly the same result as any other related cone or pyramid.

Since traditional equivalents are tangible jn character, no one seems to question their inclusion in a discussion. of pyramids and cones. With just a few exceptions, prior considerations of these devices or their equivalents have neglected to associate the physical structures with their corresponding symbolic representations. All of these exceptions have related to associating pyramids and their representations.

Fig. 13 is reasonably typical of the prior limited uses of symbolic pyramids. It was published on page 15 of the Nov.-Dec. 1986 issue of this periodical when it was previously known as The journal of Borderland Research. When published, it was accompanied by a brief discussion indicating that it had approximately the same utility as a series of pyramids – presumably pyramids corresponding to the historical ones in Egypt. Such statements are enough to establish it as an “equivalent” of a traditional pyramid in the occult field.

Fig.13 only indicates one manner in which a series of pyramids can be symbolized. Both Fig.13 and Fig. 6 separately illustrate the top plan views of a series of identical pyramids located in a “tight” rectangular pattern. In Fig. 6, the pyramids are shown in the traditional manner of mechanical drawings. It clearly shows their side edges and indicates their tips. As opposed to this, in Fig. 13, the sides of the pyramids are represented in a manner alien to normal technical drawings by a series of parallel squares of gradually decreasing line weight terminating in what appear to be top openings. The existence of side edges is not directly shown in the Fig. 13 but instead is implied because the comers of the squares are aligned. It is important to note this.

Without other illustration or explanation, neither Fig. 6 or Fig. 13 accurately portray a pyramid having the traditional proportions of the Great Pyramid in Egypt. Neither of these figures give any clue as to the what the pyramids they portray truly look like from the side. In both Figs. 6 and 13, the sides of the pyramids could have an infinite number of different configurations without disturbing the accuracy of these figures.

This point is easily shown by Figs. 14, 15, and 16, which illustrate three possible (but highly unlikely) side configurations of a pyramid representing any pyramid in Fig. 6. Any of these side configurations can be indicated by a series of parallel squares (as shown in Fig. 13) as a pyramid having the classical proportions of the Egyptian pyramids. The indefiniteness of Figs. 6 and 13 is further confirmed by the fact that either figure could represent a series of aligned, “stacked” pyramids of the same external base dimensions, or it can represent a similar series in which the top pyramid is larger at its base than any of the other pyramids in the stack.

The confusing manner in which pyramids are illustrated in Fig. 13 is especially interesting in connection with a “stack” of pyramids
of gradually diminishing size as indicated in Figs. 9 and 10. According to conventional drafting standards, each enlarged square normally used to designate a single pyramid shown in Fig. 13 can also designate a series of stacked or even nested pyramids such as the series shown in Figs. 10 or 12. It can also be used to indicate a series of other pyramids having straight, concave, or convex sides of any desired height. Any such series can consist of either symbolic or actual pyramids.

Since experience has established that a form of energy is given off from an illustration, such as Fig. 13, or from a corresponding illustration of a single pyramid, one can argue that all of the unlimited number of symbolic and actual structures capable of being portrayed by Fig.13 are to be assumed to be approximate equivalents of a classical pyramid. Further, since experience has established that the symbolic Fig. 13 does not have to be oriented with respect to the earth’s magnetic field to give off an energy, logically it appears that it is unnecessary for any related physical or symbolic structure to be so located in order to be effective.

Much of the preceding discussion can be repeated almost verbatim in connection with cones. The top plan view of a single cone (such as one of those shown in Fig. 7) can legitimately be understood as designating a right circular cone of any height or any other cone with either a bowed out, convex, inwardly extending, or concave periphery. It can also be taken as designating a series of cones of the same diameter or a series in which the diameters of the cones decrease from the top down. Any portrayal of a series of aligned cones consisting of concentric circles (corresponding to Fig. 11) can designate either cones which are all of this type, or a collection of cones which have different shapes. It can also merely indicate a single cone of any of the varieties with parallel bands or stripes located on its periphery.

Some will think that these comments relative to Figs. 6 and 13 to 16 have been phrased so as to deliberately confuse the relationships between symbolic and real pyramids and cones. Much of this confusion could be eliminated by the use of the traditional “Patent Office” shading. One result of the use of computerized drafting and lack of people trained in traditional shading techniques is that this confusion will remain an established reality.

The structural relationship between pyramids and cones is much closer than the indefiniteness of conventional drafting would suggest. Although side views of both can appear to be the same, the top and bottom views of cones and pyramids can never be interchanged. Yet from the standpoint of conventional mathematics, a cone can be regarded as a pyramid with an infinite number of sides.

Fig. 18 illustrates this point. It shows the top plan view of a series of pyramids with a gradually increasing number of sides. The sides of the last pyramid in this series are so small at their bottoms that it is obvious this particular pyramid can be considered a cone. This series alone provides an adequate basis for arguing that both cones and pyramids are merely species of some presently unrecognized genius. This is particularly true when full credence is given to Mr. Cameron’s statement which refers to the unnecessary focus on the preciseness of the construction at the top of a pyramid.

His statement about minor changes in construction not being critical to the use of cones and pyramids as APEMs effectively indicates and confirms that there can be many approximately equivalent energy-affecting cones and pyramids. These can have different relative proportions or, in the case of pyramids, differing numbers of sides. There is also a wide variety of other less popular constructions that are also rough equivalents of the pyramids and ones previously used as APEMs.

The Pyramid Guide publication previously mentioned contains a few interesting disclosures that tangible structures which indicate shapes corresponding to cones need not look like cones in order to be operative in the same manner in which cones are employed. The principal disclosures on this concern paraboloids. These surfaces of revolution fall within the list of shapes which can be illustrated in accordance with standard drawing practice by a top plan view showing a circle. There seems to be no question, only that these paraboloids and other surfaces of revolution reflect any energies that are associated with pyramids and cones in about the same way in which a normal parabolic mirror will reflect light.

The statement in the preceding paragraph, in which shapes corresponding to cones need not look like cones in order to be the equivalents of cones, may be the basis of a common practice in symbolic magic concerning circles. In traditional settings, circles are often used to protect who or whatever is inside the circle from what is outside of the circle, be it real or imaginary.

Is it possible that in addition, one or more circles have been employed in the procedures of magic to invoke the energy or energies associated with symbolic circles or physical structures shaped as pyramids? Does this logic extend even to the use of circular churches and other types of temples? Is there a corresponding history and meaning relating to the use of symbolic square design configurations, or of pyramids themselves?

Support for the proposition that a structure need not look particularly like a cone or pyramid in order to function as either of these is also found in The Pyramid Guide. On page 6 of the Nov./Dec. 197 4 issue, there is a minimal illustration of what is described as a “chain of nine beechwood hemispheres” located on the same shaft and oriented with their domed surfaces in a northerly direction and their flat bottoms facing south.

The brief write-up on this device in The Pyramid Guide indicates that the entire structure should be formed from the same member.
It also discloses that the device is shown in an incompletely identified German patent issued in 1936. Only one thing clearly indicates the relationship between common pyramids and cones and this patented composite – the fact that it is disclosed as mummifying fish. In the illustration showing the German device, the fish is pictured as being located along the axis of the entire structure adjacent to the exposed flat bottom of an end hemisphere.

Since the “modern” history of pyramids is often traced to both the mummification of stray animals in the Great Pyramid of Egypt and the preservation of items such as meat in structures having the shape of a pyramid, it seems impossible to avoid associating the hemispheres of this German patent with energy-significant pyramids and cones. From this, it seems clear that such hemispheres are approximate equivalents of both pyramids and cones.

Confirmation of this conclusion is found in a reproduction of part of Mr. Cameron’s records concerning his use of a downwardly directed hemispherical copper electric heater reflector, which was reproduced on an unnumbered page used for mailing purposes in the September- October 1973 issue of The Pyramid Guide. He observed that when this reflector was positioned above a cone, it reflected the cone’s energy beam back toward the cone, and that the reflected energy flowed “back of the cone like a stream of water.” Perhaps this means that the reflected energy went through the cone. In all probability, it means that the reflected energy was directed downwardly in a conical path by the surface of the cone.

In another issue of The Pyramid Guide (the March-April 197 4 issue), questionable additional confirmation of this conclusion concerning hemispheres being in the nature of energy-affecting pyramids and cones is found. The unnumbered cover sheet of this issue tells of a battery-powered pencil sharpener that had a top shaped as a hemisphere. In this pencil sharpener, the batteries were alleged not to have run down during approximately a 4 or 5 year period. These statements imply that the cover somehow provided a form of energy which managed to keep the batteries used charged. Such a claim may be true, but before it is accepted it should be verified.

This information concerning downwardly directed hemispheres, either alone or in an aligned series, is interesting in that it raises several related, but seemingly unanswerable questions. They all relate to the use of hemispherical and related domes in many buildings and in particular, historic buildings. Are these and other classical structures “active” in affecting subtle ambient energy? This dome type of construction may have been employed in classic buildings such as the Pantheon, because it is attractive, it is possible that it may additionally have been used because of its energy controlling or affecting properties.

We know from the famous acoustics of their amphitheaters that the ancient Greeks and Romans were quite efficient in dealing with the minute energy found in speech . Is it possible that they or others may have recognized a utility, which has now been lost to history, of a dome shape in connection with other subtle energies? If so, this configuration has been emulated throughout history because of its inherent attractiveness, while the complete significance of a dome shape has been lost.

The unknowns that are relative to domes are of the same character as both pyramids and cones. If the latter can be symbolically portrayed, it is only reasonable that the former can also be symbolically represented. It is all too easy to overlook an aspect of such symbolism which was not clearly emphasized in the preceding discussion. Two types of symbolic representations are significant in connection with APEMs: (1) those pertaining to only the outline of a structure or device and (2) those pertaining to surface character. The latter is usually connected with the spaces between the outlines of a structure, not to the fundamental character of the device itself.

Much is still unknown on these topic. No one knows the number of present customs and practices that may be based on ancient recognition of the desirability of concentrating the energy or energies associated with pyramids and cones in various particular circumstances. Only little mental activity is required to extend the philosophy of the preceding discussion relative to actual and symbolic APEMs into a consideration of traditional practices for which there is little believable explanation. Several customary aspects of society illustrate this point.

It is easy to speculate that the conical hats traditionally associated with the practice of magic were originally worn so as to affect the energy levels within the heads of those who wore them. This is not too far-fetched, in view of the fact that beneficial results have been currently attributed to wearing hats shaped as pyramids. Of course, this type of speculation becomes even more interesting when it is considered that traditional dunce caps, as well as many hats worn by laborers were conical in shape.

To most people, it will initially appear that the use of conical hats is unrelated to cones serving as APEMs because these hats do not have the shape of 90 degree cones. This view can be discarded because, as indicated earlier, the angle at the apex of a cone affects the columnar nature of the energy associated with operation of the cone. There seems to be good reason to speculate that a colinear column of energy from the tip of a 90 degree cone may be detrimental to a person’s brain, while less concentrated energy (as is apparently obtained from cones having significantly larger or smaller cone angles) may be beneficial.

An obelisk is an equally interesting topic for speculation. Although much has been written about them, no one really knows why they were originally created in the traditional shape of a pyramid on top of an elongated rectangular integral support. It is to be anticipated that when an objective method of measuring the subtle energies associated with pyramids and cones is achieved, we will learn that the supports in obelisks are essentially wave guides for the energies “processed” in the pyramids formed on them.

Chinese pagodas are other structures which appear to be related to energy-affecting cones and pyramids. They quite clearly have a superficial resemblance to an aligned stack of pyramids or cones as shown in Figs. 10 and 12. Western Civilization seems to have
no clear idea as to why the Chinese adopted this type of construction for just a few distinctive buildings that do not seem to be a part
of their current religious system or systems. It would appear that they were often erected at points such as where ley lines intersect
and that they were often used for the storage of valuable items such as venerated documents.

From what little is known relative to pyramids and cones, it seems clear that they were used for such purposes, since the roofs in such buildings act more or less like a series of pyramids so as to apply preserving energy to whatever was placed within them and, presumably, to the curators of these structures. While it is illogical to expect that any APEM will preserve such things as beliefs, it is clear that any such structure can be expected to aid in the preservation of paper or the like which might carry a meaningful writing or illustration. One can compare this with current uses of pyramids to preserve all sorts of organic materials.

Towers that have spirals extending around their exteriors are, on occasion, considered rough equivalents of pagodas. It is interesting that such beliefs are supported by a combination of actual devices and symbolism. In his early works developing energy-affecting cones, Mr. Cameron lent support to the idea that spirals might be related to cones and pyramids. This seems to be a by-product of his attempts to develop an electrical or electronic structure capable of being used to detect and measure the energy he experienced in his work as a dowser. There seems to be no record of any of this work, except a few disclosures indicating that he attempted to use flat, helical coils for this purpose. The coils he used in his experiments can be directly compared to those used in early medical practice. That work was unsuccessful. In seeking more satisfactory results than he had achieved, he was influenced to develop the use of cones, most likely from observing what must have been conical, spiral antenna-like structures which were then used by chiropractors.

Sadly, we have no further detail as to the spiral structures which influenced him. No record or knowledge of their use in the chiropractic field has been located in the preparation of this document. Almost everyone familiar with the field of radionics is aware of the early use of spiral antennas to radiate power supplied by an external circuit. Since the cones developed by Mr. Cameron only operate on the basis of ambient energy, it is logical to expect that he somehow noticed an energy associated with an unconnected coil. This in tum stimulated his thinking in some unknown manner which resulted in his producing energy-affecting cones.

Mr. Cameron’s probable steps between an unknown chiropractor’s coil and a cone are an interesting topic for speculation. At the time, he must have known about consistent reports of energy beams associated with and extending along the axis of either helical or cylindrically wound coils which were not connected into any sort of a circuit. It follows that he then built his knowledge of cones and pyramid energies on the basis of this knowledge. It is interesting to note that such beams are now commonly encountered in symbolic magic in association with two dimensional representations of spiral coils made using inks which are not normally considered as conductors.

The fact that Mr. Cameron derived cones from coils makes it seem desirable to expand present thinking relative to ambient energy-affecting pyramids and cones. They should be concurrently considered in connection with both naturally powered flat and cylindrical coils. The thinking on this topic should also consider a series of maze configurations and the shapes of a variety of antennas, which all provide or seem to provide a beam of concentrated energy from the ambient. While all of such items may not be exact equivalents of one another, there is adequate reason to believe that they perform approximately the same function in roughly the same manner.

A significant clue to the verification of this last statement (and as to the possibility of the development of a simple, effective apparatus for making objective measurements relative to the energies associated with all APEMs) is found in a seldom referenced aspect of Mr. Cameron’s experimentation reported on pages 38 and 39 of The Cameron Aurameter publication. Because of references to an aluminum headband in the discussion on page 38 of this text, a lack of a clear correspondence between this discussion, and a sketch on the following page 39, an essentially minor degree of guess work is required to understand his experimentation.

The crucial aspect of it lies in his discovery that the energy beam from a horizontally disposed cone -presumably a galvanized sheet metal cone – when directed toward the center of a helical coil serving as an antenna for a regenerative radio set, could be amplified so as to produce “noise” capable of being varied by locking and unblocking the beam of energy from the cone. He also used a second cone instead of coil by connecting it so that the apex of the second cone was secured to the radio, which served as the antenna for the radio. He then located the second cone so that it had an open bottom which faced the first cone.

It is surprising that no one seems to have followed up this work of Mr. Cameron or even to have substituted a pyramid for a cone in an experiment as described. This is a shame. With the acceptability of APEMs in traditional technology seemingly contingent on the development of objective measurements of the energies associated with pyramids and cones, it seems clear that it is only a matter of time and effort until it is possible to obtain meter readings giving relative strengths of the energy beams obtained from APEMs.

It also seems a shame that little work has been reported relative to the use of two or more pyramids or cones which have been directed toward one another or toward other devices or structures or which are known to be APEMs. These composite structures, as have been reported, tend to be in the same category as two mirrors or antennas used so as to, in theory, reflect energy back and forth for an indefinite period.

The simplest of these structures are cones and pyramids of the same dimension located in base to base relationship. There are variations of this based upon the use of parabolic reflectors which face one another. No reason is seen why elliptical “half shells” could not be used in a similar manner. From such simple geometric structures, it is possible to derive all manner of enclosed composites of one or more types of APEMs.

At this point in time, it is thought that it will be premature to become lost in an endless investigation of such composite APEM devices when knowledge with respect to simple APEMs is so limited. No one can dispute the potential interest in these composites, particularly in applying intense energy to any thing or life form placed between two or more APEMs. This is particularly intriguing in connection with the transfer of energy from one source at the focus of one elliptical half shell to an intended recipient at the focus of the other. This is related to the use of a parabolic APEM to concentrate energy at its focus. Do such “set ups” have the potential of facilitating the development of such phenomena as telepathy?

Before we get to such matters, it will be prudent to investigate the basics with respect to pyramids and cones. Less work will be required in connection with this than one might expect. There seems to be no reason as to why no one seems to have previously bothered to collect the principle known information relative to pyramids and cones so as to improve its availability.