There was nothing to worry about with certain kinds of radiation, he said, since “everything in the world is radioactive”. He also added in very severe confidence that “certain radiations are known to be good for you”. While strictly warning me not to take this statement of truth for carelessness license, he strongly intimated that what he stated was based on classified knowledge which he would never divulge. I suspect very deeply that his familiarity with such matters intensified his authority in these regards.

While I listened in startled silence, Mr. Lehr began to speak extemporaneously on a most remarkable phenomenon of natural radioactivity. He told of several instances which revealed the “spontaneous generation of radioactivity” in the environment, a surprising phenomenon which is not generally known or appreciated. The manner in which Mr. Lehr introduced the topic added an especially new fascination, and the historical records suddenly acquired a new and comprehensive meaning.

Mr. Lehr reported that rooftop sheet copper. after decades of direct exposure to sunlight, was literally transformed into a radioactive isotope. He told that this transformative process yielded sometimes excessively radioactive copper. This immediately suggested a thought stream which brought the conversation to a perfect closure. That natural radioactivity appears in the environment, often very suddenly and spontaneously, is not a fact generally mentioned in any scientific circles. Yet, I was aware there were numerous references which spoke of this remarkable natural process throughout the Victorian Bibliography.


The academic world was divided into quantitative and qualitative oppositions many times during the years when X-Rays were discovered. On one occasion during 1896, the schism engaged an experimental discovery which challenged the quantitative model of Optics and Light too thoroughly for comfort. Constituting yet another fascinating lost chapter in the Victorian legacy, it all began when several experimenters discovered certain strange actions of focused sunlight on photographic emulsions.

These experimenters plainly demonstrated that sunlight contained species of radiant energy which were capable of duplicating, in every attribute, those rays of Roentgen. An intriguing collection of “solarigraphs” were taken by Hammer, Morton, Rittenhouse, Schmidt, Case, Robertson, Ker, d’Infreville, G. Thompson, and Nikola Tesla.

Tesla may have been the first to achieve this experimental wonder. He certainly was first to make a public statement of his theoretical views concerning the effect:

“When radioactive phenomena were discovered, I was prepared to view them as merely the secondary effects of an external radiation, and as no trace of such a disturbance could be detected on earth, I concluded that the primary activating rays were of cosmic origin and most likely to emanate from Suns closely resembling our luminary.

“As the first step in clearing up this mystery, I undertook to ascertain whether the Sun was charged to a potential sufficiently high to produce the tremendous electrostatic repulsion, which I had found to be the only force in Nature capable of accounting for that phenomenon.

“I finally ascertained… that the Sun was at a constant positive potential of about 216 Billion Volts. Owing to its immense charge, the Sun imparts to minute positively electrified particles prodigious velocities… some attaining a speed exceeding 50 times the velocity of Light”.

In the Tesla lexicon, the Sun was “positive” in charge. This was [29]a term referring, not to the conventional positive charge used in electro-physics, but to one connoting potentials in the Aether. The high positive potential represented the “supply potential” by which the Sun expelled an enormous flood of rays. It was reasonable to suppose that the Sun could expose well-shielded photographic plates as easily as could artificially produced X-Rays. Indeed, there were researchers who showed that, after short exposures to full sunlight, the fogging of photosensitive plates could occur directly through thick wrappers of metal foil.

Soon, the several transformative effects of sunlight on metals and minerals were discovered. After interposing opaque objects between their plates and the Sun, many other experimenters proved it possible to produce clarified images. Solarigraphic images were produced even when the photoplates were sealed in thick foil wrappers. In certain of these experiments, solar light seemed able to pass through coins and keys, producing images with softened edges. These images were often surrounded with aureoles of dark star-like “discharge lines”. Such radiating patterns served only to heighten the mystery. That the Sun itself was a “radioactive body” was not questioned after this episode of discoveries.

The concept that an unknown component in sunlight was causing the phenomenon of radioactivity stood as completely plausible, but utterly “unacceptable”. Experimental evidence rendered very believable the fact that the Sun was indeed a source of special radiations. But these gradual vindications of the Tesla model proved too decisive for academic comfort, and insurgent theoretical reprisals sought only to topple Tesla from his well-deserved place. Most important was the fact that, in these early simple proofs, the early Teslian view was verified. In subsequent exceptional instances, largely accidental in their observation, numerous Victorian researchers found special applications for the Tesla Aether Model.


It was while considering all of these theoretical possibilities that Dr. Le Bon discovered a strange corollary of the Hertz photoelectric effect. It was an effect whose intensity of yield and technological potential astounded the scientific world of his time. In the course of exposing certain light metals (magnesium, aluminum. tin) to focused sunlight, Dr. Le Ben was able to produce a “radioactive” expulsion of charges. These first experiments were simple inquiries into the spontaneous appearance of radioactivity in the natural environment.

The modified experiment which Le Bon conducted was imminently simple: a simple magnesium plate on which sunlight was focused by a lens. Measurements were made by his modified gold leaf electroscope. Nothing could be more basic. The radioactive yield of this arrangement succeeded in producing an enormous and unexpected electrostatic charge. According to Dr. Le Bon. this yield measured intensities “surpassing the radioactivity of Radium”.

With cessation of the focused sunlight, the radioactivities which Le Bon reported very slowly withdrew. The radiant outputs settled to a nearly neutral value after each exposure, but a residual radioactivity always remained. The residual, or “artificial” radioactivity, appeared after successive exposures. These were features which had never been induced through the focused use of solar ultraviolet light. Such highly expulsive reactions, especially with its residual results, could not easily be explained without resorting to the aether model.

Here was no simple corollary of the Hertz photoelectric effect. What this data indicated was the presence of a radiant component in sunlight which was nothing like ordinary photons. Le Bon reviewed the basic components of the Tesla aether theory for his readers. He also taught that external aetheric bombardments produced the apparent auto-radioactivity of dense elements, which behaved as “targets” for the aetheric particles. It was not then difficult to comprehend the strange effects in his simple experimental arrangement, which produced extraordinary radioactive yields directly from sunlight.


Tesla had independently recognized the extraordinary potentials which were released when sunlight was properly utilized. It is clear that Tesla also recognized the special character of reactions evolved by exposing light metals to intense sunlight. Large metal capacity plates were tested, both in air and in vacuum. In his early radiant energy converters, Tesla directed brilliant sunlight onto these elevated plates. These light “white” metal plates (tin, magnesium, aluminum) were connected to a high voltage mica capacitor. The other terminal of this capacitor was grounded. With these simple arrangements, Tesla produced extraordinarily powerful discharges, producing power capable of operating motors and other appliances. His later experiments proved the value of housing the metal plate in a highly evacuated glass vessel.

In the intense aetheric stream of strongly focused sunlight, both Tesla and Le Bon each assumed that light metal atoms were literally being dissolved in an expulsive blast of very fine radiant particles. This dissolution was viewed as the mechanism which released the enormous charge, the “radioactivity surpassing that of Radium”. This brilliant discovery acquired an equally brilliant realization… that radioactivity could be controlled.

In several thrilling chapters, Le Bon discussed the dissolution of his light metal plates as “fuel”. His devices were “photoreactors”. The implications contained in the phenomenon were far too numerous to mention and far too dangerous for academicians to relinquish. The stunning announcements of Le Bon were received with a wide and typically schismatic degree of response in the consortium. His terminology for “intra-atomic energy” was far too revolutionary for many of his colleagues. Because of the manner in which his thrilling work was simply ignored by fellow academes, Le Bon found himself publishing his own books. Suffice it to say that, with such a phenomenon being thoroughly grasped and implemented, a new energy and materials technology would have been unleashed in society. Thus does the indelible bibliographic testimony give witness to several experimental instances where notable scientific researchers of highest credentials consistently observed solar-stimulated transformations of matter. There are many more such entries than I am able to mention here. But no matter, here the controversy must begin. For it is clear that no such experimental possibility is provided by any of the existing atomic models.

Please recall that Tesla viewed shattered atoms as collections of massless particles “not further decomposed”. What then is the exact solar process responsible for the conversion of tin, magnesium, and aluminum into a condition of radioactivity “surpassing that of Radium”? Consider the modern requirements for such an effortless conversion, and realize that if we are indeed to accept the contemporary schema, then we cannot accept the evidence of these significant and highly reproducible experiments. But if we do accept the experimental evidence, if we prove that the testimony of the experimental findings is true, then we become candidates for academic derision. For in accepting the experimental evidence, we also accept the fact that sunlight can dissolve metal atoms into subatomic particles!


To violate the barrier potential of a metal nucleus, to shatter it into subatomic particles, is a prospect which high energy physicists do not engage lightly. Rather than seize the serendipity of discoveries made by Tesla and Le Bon, the first conventional experiments with atomic shattering preferred to begin with the limited state of knowledge. Approaching the problem of “atom smashing”, Rutherford and others used the output flux of certain radioactive materials in order to bombard neutral targets. It was in this manner that Rutherford “discovered the nucleus”. In their progressive quest to define and “construct the atomic model”, the possibility never crossed the academic mind that the very process of “working on matter” might have introduced a serious error. Failing to acknowledge the philosophy, the science of mind and consciousness, academia also failed to realize the simplest philosophical consideration. In their successive and diverse applications of work on matter, their consortium produced a series of discoveries which merely reflected their own actions on matter.

Consider this carefully: If particles are used to strike matter, particles emerge. If light is applied, light emerges. If gamma rays strike matter, gamma rays emerge. If electrons are used, then electrons emerge. This process of applications and yields continues ad infinitum, until more ultimate and more refined particles are developed. But the most important realization is one which teaches consciousness about matter more directly than all of these kinematic concerns.

The force barriers of nuclei exist only because of the energetic applications which produced them. The stronger the strike… the stronger the “barrier”. Matter evidences an hysterical constricting response to violent impact. Atoms “manifest” only when matter is violently impacted. “Atomic centers” are reactive responses to any amount of violence done to matter. And this is a more surprising phenomenon than the static existence of atomic lattices. But it was an arcane doctrine, teaching the manner in which matter becomes the experimenter’s mirror. It is the doctrine which teaches us that, peering deep into a reflective pool, each face produces its own reflection.

The application to matter of each action produces the specific observation. The application of certain energies to matter literally determine the nature of each resulting observations. Strike hard — hard particles out; strike sharp — sharp particles out; strike soft — soft particles out. We would also make clear the fact that all of the kinematic forces related to matter, all of the “internal barriers”, all restrictive “barrier potentials”, and “thresholds”, are therefore the superficial effects of treatment — and certainly not fundamental causes.

This consequence of treatment and observation produces a distorted science, a completely distorted worldview. To physicists of the 20th Century, greater power seemed the only means of “surmounting the nuclear barriers”. But do the barriers actually exist? Is matter constricted into atomic centers when matter is at rest? Physics saw that the faster the applied particles, the more demanding the natural laws of penetration became. In truth, the only natural law was the manner in which matter was being used by the physicists. The soft approach would have revealed “soft laws”! This is in fact what Le Bon and Tesla discovered, where soft sunlight permeated and shattered matter into… aether.

Copper sheeting on rooftop.


In order to determine whether prolonged exposure to intense sunlight really can stimulate radioactivity in neutral materials, one first requires an elevated site. I found such a site, obtained permissions and keys to the roof. It afforded nearly an acre of space. Perfect. The old copper sheeting was everywhere. Apple green and completely intact since the very day it was placed. Tall vertical skylights, airshafts, and chimneys interspersed the vantage point, an excellent population of variegated sites from which to select several good sites. Exposed to intense, direct sunlight for six decades without significant human intervention, the copper sheeting had been in place since the building was built in 1937. This roof copper therefore, in my estimation, offered a perfect prooftext for the originally stated thesis of Mr. Lehr.

If the very highest elevations are preferred for our purpose, this roof thoroughly fulfilled that requirement. It was conveniently the tallest structure for several miles in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. The surrounding neighborhood is primarily residential. This was vital, since a relatively neutral radiation environment is necessary for the acquisition of accurate readings. Fortunately. the elevated site I chose for this purpose was in a relatively “untouched” state. Unfrequented by disturbing human agencies, the five-story structure provided a perfect opportunity for a great number of consecutive radiation readings.

The roof is smokeless, indeed opened to the winds. To the west may be seen first the Narrows, and then the blue-green ridges and hills of Staten Island. To the east, one sees again over the low roofs of private homes and a few apartment buildings. It is a scenery interspersed with occasional tall church spires, and leads out toward Rockaway Beach and the southern Long Island seacoast.

Free and continual access to such an elevated site is a prerequisite for such observation. Each time I gingerly placed my key in the screen door lock leading to one such roof, quietly climbed the haunting silent flights, opened the heavy bronze doors, and walked out into the sunlight, I fully expected to find some new discovery. I was never disappointed.


I decided to focus my experimental readings on the copper-covered surfaces which “followed” the solar track, purposing to make the climb no fewer than three times throughout each day. I therefore limited the sites to “east-facing” and “west-facing” walls. In addition, I chose a group of highly elevated surfaces and another of roof-level surfaces. It was important to find a great number of separated sites. Therefore, two elevated and two level copper surfaces were selected for both eastward and westward facing walls, a total of eight separate sites. This was a population which could efficiently be visited and measured three times daily. Each entire operation required at least twenty minutes per visit. Each site was numbered with a large dry marker. Furthermore, the placement of the Geiger Counter on each site was limited to a small fixed area which was marked.

Handheld Russian-made Geiger Counter, the MIKON-104.

Very accurate measurements were obtained with a handheld Russian-made Geiger Counter, the BELBAR RKSB (MIKON-104). This Counter was obtained from David Shannon Minerals (1-602-985-0557) at a more than reasonable price ($61.00 with shipping). Most equivalent American models are exorbitant in price and far less accurate.

The unit is small (6 × 3 × 1 inches) and lightweight, making for an easy means by which numerous field readings may be made in a short time period. The reliable performance of this convenient and remarkably inexpensive unit provides well-calibrated readings in either alpha, beta, or gamma radiations. As described in the translated instruction brochure, a few simple modifications of DIP switches on the back panel permit threshold sensitization to specific rays.

The removal of its moulded plastic back-panel exposes the Geiger Tubes to any radiation source and, once set to do so, counts individual events. Radiation counts from two internal 3 inch Geiger Tubes are amplified by solid state electronics and displayed on a large black and gray LCD. Automatic interpolations can be obtained by appropriate switch assignments, and an interpolated hourly exposure in Micro-Roentgens is then displayed. The MIKON-104 made measurements more convenient than my RADIAC equipment, a bulky military unit. Originally manufactured for use in the Soviet nuclear industry, the NIKON unit is provided with an extensively documented passport (1992 validation). This documentation was stamped and signed by Soviet technical officials before release from the manufacturer, an admirable quality-control feature.


It is of course recognized that a proper research on this fascinating topic demands observations over seasonal time lengths, a pursuit which will be followed during the course of the next year. But several remarkable data artifacts have been identified. The data correlations are numerous and sundry, and will be discussed after the tables have been presented.

MAY 1997
(Values in Micro-Roentgens)

D T W GFE 1L 2H 3L 4H GFW 5L 6H 7L 8H
5 SA S 13 22 28 17 26 12 13 21 10 25
12P S 16 20 27 24 25 14 17 25 21 23
3P S 18 18 23 15 21 15 20 17 21 20
6 8A R 14 18 36 18 29 18 19 24 27 14
12P* C/W 23 18 30 16 23 22 16 16 22 16
3P** C/W 19 18 26 16 20 20 37 30 34 31
7 8A S/C 19 15 27 19 20 14 21 19 23 19
12P S/C 17 19 25 17 15 13 17 24 20 14
3P S 19 18 19 15 19 12 15 18 10 18
8 8A S 13 18 31 13 26 11 10 16 17 13
12P S 16 16 28 11 19 13 20 20 11 14
3P C 18 17 20 17 22 21 21 15 18 26
9 8A C 16 31 24 17 21 19 11 22 9 15
12P C 26 8 24 16 23 16 17 23 20 13
3P R/C 20 25 36 19 26 14 23 25 19 18
TOTALS 281 404 250 335 277 315 282 279
MAXIMA 31 36 24 29 37 30 34 31
MINIMA 8 19 11 15 11 15 9 11
DEVIATION 23 17 13 14 26 15 25 20
* tornadic stormfront during measurements
** sunshine following severe lightning storm

MAY 1997
(Values in Micro-Roentgens)

D T W GFE 1L 2H 3L 4H GFW 5L 6H 7L 8H
12 8A S 22 23 41 24 23 26 21 16 20 21
12P S 26 33 45 31 25 20 28 25 16 17
3P S 24 19 43 28 35 20 24 34 26 22
13 8A C 18 23 31 21 38 19 23 23 36 30
12P C 23 29 50 26 34 16 25 29 30 21
3P C 20 25 43 32 37 17 20 21 29 22
14 8A S 25 29 37 21 31 16 27 28 22 25
12P S/C 18 25 32 18 33 25 30 35 32 34
3P S/C 14 22 34 36 20 17 21 30 15 24
15 8A C 24 24 37 17 23 25 16 29 23 24
12P S 31 21 31 32 30 30 28 24 18 34
3P S 21 25 44 26 37 19 25 20 16 37
16 8A S 19 21 37 26 38 23 31 22 27 24
12P S 19 18 50 25 18 37 23 23 26 29
3P C 23 25 34 31 29 21 20 25 16 22
TOTALS 362 589 394 451 362 384 352 386
MAXIMA 33 50 36 38 30 35 36 37
MINIMA 18 31 17 18 16 16 15 16
DEVIATION 15 19 19 20 14 19 21 21


The sites are listed as L (roof Level) and H (High elevation), designations intended to represent the relative rooftop elevation of each site. This variable was thought important, especially when considering the effect of free-standing elevation in strong sunlight.

Readings were usually taken at times roughly “symmetric” about noonday: at 8 AM, Noon, and 3 PM. Gamma Ray readings (May 5 to 10) were followed with a separate series of Beta Ray readings (May 12 to 17). A determination of the Cosmic Gamma flow [GP] for each hour preceded each line of Gamma readings. Likewise, a determination of the Cosmic Beta flow [BF] for that hour preceded each line of Beta readings.

The regional cosmic ray flow was taken from two cardinal solar directions. These readings were made by simply holding the counter overhead at a 45 degree angle, consecutively facing the sky to the East, and then to the West. To insure greatest accuracy, Cosmic Gamma flow values east [GFE] and west [GFW] were taken before each hourly Gamma readings. Cosmic Beta flow east [BFE] and west [BFW] were likewise taken before each hourly Beta readings. The importance of these preliminary Cosmic Ray readings cannot be underestimated.

Both the Cosmic Gamma flow readings [GF] and the Beta flow readings [BF] represent a specific particle flow rate from space. Such readings provide an imperative reference for the radioactivity levels measured at each site. It was critical that these values be taken each hour, since the celestial flow might augment or diminish each site reading by a defined amount. In addition to these cosmic flow rates, the prevalent meteorological conditions were all noted with each reading, signified on the chart by [W]. Notes are clear, S (sunny), C (clouds), R (rain), W (wind). The reader should verify each of several intriguing data artifacts by inspecting the attached tables.


We first note the singular fact that ALL of the exposed copper sheets are quite radioactive! It is obvious that the simple exposure of copper to intense and unobstructed sunlight over time successfully converts neutral copper into radioactive isotopes. And now come all the shattered remains of modern theory. To the victors go the spoils! The readings which I obtained therefore actually vindicate those statements made by my dear departed friend, Wilhelm Lehr. He was right!

My readings also corroborate the experimental research of Dr. Gustav Le Bon, vindicating the Victorian Bibliography. More accurately, copper shows itself resistant in the production of the great yields observed by Dr. Le Bon with the lighter metals. But the effect, both of the general conversion and residual radioactivity in the metal, is shown to be a real and measurable phenomenon.

I might add that my unrecorded readings of rooftop iron plates always gave curiously null results. In comparison to the copper sheeting, the iron was significantly neutral. At no time was I able to acquire the slightest indication that the iron roof pipes and other artifices, poised in their elevated positions for nearly 40 years, were the slightest bit radioactive. Therefore it seems rather obvious that a critical skill in observation precedes the realization of this phenomenon, a skill which I fear is seriously lacking in the academic halls.

The astute reader recognizes an essential quandary. In effect, we are asking how or why this artificial radioactivity was rendered. How is it possible that atoms have been transmuted from a simple, prolonged exposure to direct sunlight? How can a copper-clad rooftop outperform a linear accelerator? Accepting this evidence, we must also accept a new phenomenon… or ignore every thesis defining weak and strong nuclear binding forces.

This simple experimental evidence compels the acceptance of a contradiction, determining either our endorsement of a new model or the stubborn refusal to relinquish that which has been proven false and incomplete. How else will we then rationalize the fact that some component of sunlight is able to outdo the deadly work of artificially accelerated particles?


The data in these two small tables has produced significant short-range correlations and several notable “artifacts”. We include the following observations:

(a) Higher Beta and Gamma Counts on all high sites [H].
(b) Higher Beta and Gamma Counts on all East-facing sites.
(c) Highest Beta and Gamma Counts on all high East-facing sites.
(d) Highest Beta and Gamma Count deviations on roof level [L] sites.

(e) High Gamma Counts on East-facing [H] sites in early morning.
(f) High Gamma Counts on West-facing [L] sites in late afternoon.
(g) High Beta Counts on East and West-facing sites from Noon to late afternoon.

(h) Fluctuations in GFE do not produce increased site Gamma counts.
(i) Fluctuations in GFW produce high counts in west [H] sites.
[33](j) Fluctuations in BFE produce high Beta counts in east [H] sites.

(k) High Gamma counts in east and west-facing sites with Clouds or Rain.
(1) High Beta counts in east and west-facing sites with bright Sunshine.


The data reveals several other contributing factors to the radio-activity of the rooftop copper. Were we completely mechanistic in our thinking, we would give apologetic analysis of each factor. We would first have to actually accept the evidence, a controversial and problematic proposition which academes would NEVER engage. That the source of radioactivity in rooftop copper is not entirely found in sunlight seems indicated by the data tables. It is obvious that in the production of such radioactivities, sunlight represents but one stimulating agent of change.

Some have suggested that the observed count pulsations follow the cosmic ray flow, that the significant variations are due to the augmentations contributed by incoming particles. But the absolute distinction between celestial radiation, and that which has been measured in the copper, is at once recognized. Now do the simple combined effects of sunlight and electrostatic charging actually result in the strange transmutations which I have observed? One would imagine that only a comparative study of elevated metals would reveal the truth of the matter. Some would propose relatively simple “in situ” studies, observing various metals, solar intensities, solar orientations. exposure times, and elevations. All the superficial inert forces.

The quantitative analyst will note that data reveal a dramatic effect due to elevation. That these sites have been exposed to both the strong sunlight and the powerful effect of elevation will offer yet another means by which the transmutations maybe reduced to inert basic forces. One notes that the more highly elevated sites evidence higher Beta and Gamma counts at certain sites. This is especially true of the east facing sites. The mechanist then observes something of a “coordination” or “cooperation” between solar orientations, and elevation, imagining of course that the combined forces produce the radioactivity over time. There are data which reveal the effects of insulation and elevation. Analysis will examine the manner in which both effects combine to accelerate the transmutation process in rooftop copper.

They will elucidate on the very obvious role of grounding, especially through the material of steel-framed buildings. The facts pertinent to electrostatic charging will be espoused, the steel building frame being the responsible agent of charge absorption. According to the banal theory, all elevation effects are correlated to the rooftop discharge of ground absorbed electricity. Such ground charges would concentrate into the building frame during solar peak hours or during conditions of storm.

Gradually rising through the steel and concrete of the building, ions would appear to be “beta rays” when measured. Their discharge rate would depend on all of the previous variables, being also most strongly observed from specific rooftop sites. The geometry of walls and shaft edges would then determine the degree in which ions are projected without impedance. It would not therefore be difficult to imagine that certain sharply pointed rooftop sites, those which have been laminated with copper, would give the greater Beta values. Lo and behold, when we examine the Beta Charts, this is precisely what we find. One does indeed notice the wildest sorts of fluctuations from the most elevated and sharply pointed roof sites.

In this case, the few quantitative analysts, who might take pleasure in undoing this phenomenon, would seek therefore to reduce the entire find to a combination of inert forces: solar intensity, solar orientation. elevation, ground charging, and site geometry. In hopes of determining the exact combination of inert forces responsible for the observed phenomena, the obsessed quantitative researcher would arrange a controlled laboratory model of the otherwise natural configurations. The relative effect of sunlight and electrostatic charging could then easily be assessed with regard to different metals.

In the academic pursuit, one would therefore be led to imagine that a simple knowledge of the exact inert forces would always solve every such anomaly. The reductive reasoning would now compel certain conclusions about the observed phenomenon, always seeking to eliminate the experiment on grounds of “poor and fallible technique”. After each inert force was assessed, both alone and in varied combinations, the phenomenon would most likely be reduced to a consideration of unsterile experimental procedures and instrumental failures.

Closer to the heinous truth is the consistent observation that academes are always more predisposed in their experimental approach than their much-promoted skepticism would admit. The academic hatred of convention-defying discoveries is almost as renown as their inability to manage the larger energetic organizations which integrate the natural world. Preferring to find the error rather than the truth, any academe would throw all of this evidence out with both the premise and experimental method. Orthodoxy would place this experiment in the many chambers of willful ignorance, there to sit among the all too numerous natural wonders which also defied quantitative reduction. While Beta counts can be resolved in terms of electrostatic charge effects, there exists in my body of data a mystery not so easily resolved.


Quantitative force reductions have too long ruled the scientific community. Reductionist predispositions cannot however manage our next and most important foray. While the previous sections served to clear the more vapid treatments of my work, and were a necessary departure from my theme, the following sequence of thoughts will launch the reader sufficiently beyond these mundane considerations. Careful study of my data tables reveals a remarkable artifact, one which recognizes the pulsating character of counts as completely anomalous.

My Geiger-Muller readings show radiation counts levels which nearly twice exceed the hourly cosmic ray background. But while these strong maxima do vindicate W. G. Lehr, they are not the most intriguing aspects of experiment. One observes that radiation values vary with each reading. One critic considered my data to be the result of spurious effects, of some malfunction in the reading instrument. Subsequent reference readings were taken from a fixed radiation source, one whose radiant output was known from previous observations. The unit read the same levels as prior to the [34]rooftop tests, proving itself consistent and well-calibrated. The MIKON-104 was not at fault, and, at each site, measured variations in radiation counts.

Another voice protested that the copper sheeting was non-uniform in its radioactive condition, and that I had inadvertently taken handheld readings at very different spots on the copper surface. Any vulgar skeptic may be satisfied with the possibility that, having thus obtained spurious readings from hour to hour through the course of a week, my study is invalid. I do not mind very much then to relate that this prior contingency had early been assessed. The sections were each outlined with a marker to establish “count constancy”. Personal error was not the cause of the variable readings, an anomaly where there should have been none.

That all of the exposed copper surfaces were radioactive was a fact beyond question. That the copper sites demonstrated a residual radioactivity is also noted with a profound sense of wonder. Yet, looking again at the tables, we read the deviations of counts taken from each site, and are now faced with a true mystery. Collectively then, the indicated values do not represent those normally registered with materials which are conventionally deemed “radioactive”.

The “clock-regular” consistency of radiation from mineral matter had been early verified by several researchers (Becquerel, Chadwick, Curie. Rutherford, Soddy et al). It was therefore conventionally agreed that each radioactive mineral demonstrated a “half-life” of decay. during which time a specific radiant yield was always expected. One could select any radioisotope, and with some accurate degree of precision, determine what the radiant yield should be. Subsequent instrumentations revealed the usual high degree of correlation between the predicted yields and those actually measured.

My values are different. They vary with each hour. One observes that both Beta and Gamma rooftop counts “pulsate”, apparently with each minute! I have tried these tests repeatedly, yet obtain the same results. In order to test how quickly the pulsations occur, I tried a crude experimental method which, though manual, shows very clearly the anomalous pulsating nature of these radioactive isotopes. Having found a stray sample of copper from the roof, I conducted a series of consecutive readings. The inward “dark copper” face and the “green exposed face” were consecutively and repeatedly read for the course of an half hour. I obtained the remarkable data found in tables 3 and 4.


13 22
13 10
18 11
10 8
12 20
12 10
11 14
10 13
17 13
14 14
10 14
16 17
9 18
12 14
16 13
20 15
14 10
13 11
12 11
5 6
8 12
12 14
10 16
13 10
14 13
MAXIMA 20 22
DEV. 15 16


9 7
5 7
9 7
6 7
11 10
8 8
15 6
8 8
5 14
7 10
6 7
7 10
17 8
10 13
7 11
12 10
6 9
3 6
12 11
4 9
10 10
11 11
8 10
7 7
10 8
MAXIMA 17 14
DEV. 14 8


Taken over the course of a relatively short time, these pulsating counts are significant… and mystifying. Indeed, these are some of the most anomalous variations one can obtain from any single radioisotope, and it is precisely in the study of these pulses that we obtain the most profound revelation. The remarkable count minima, those sudden and anomalous “dropouts”, offer a most unexpected aspect to the phenomenon. That there should be absolutely no such deviation from the ordinary constancy of a radioactive output is a conventional “rule”. No purely quantitative analysis may unravel the puzzle.

The early mechanistic Tesla aether model helped only to explain some of the more kinematic effects which have been here observed, and has been my guiding principle in the more mechanistic considerations of the phenomenon. I have found, however, that this model does not sufficiently explain these pulsations.

Skeptical readers may be led to imagine that the fluctuating Beta Counts represent either the action of downward impinging cosmic rays, or upward ion discharges from the sharply edged elevated sites. And varying Beta counts can be correlated with surging electro-static fields in the building. Yes, they would be read as “counts” by the MIKON-104… but Gamma counts do not correlate with any electrostatic fluctuations. Why then do they pulsate?

There is NO recognized mechanism to explain the pulsating Gamma Rays. In the conventional lexicon, they constitute a population of energies unlike all other radiations: neutral, massless, and produced by the deepest transactions in electron orbitals. For the undoing of our experiment, this species of energy represents, for the quantitative analyst, an impasse.

Indeed, are there any forces which can effect a sudden surge or suppression in Gamma Ray intensities? Certainly none of the inert forces. The Mossbauer (resonant gamma) transitions is not applicable here, especially since neither the materials nor temperature levels satisfy the necessary conditions for that effect to occur. No combination of the inert forces can be offered as an adequate answer in this regard. The amazing manner in which each Gamma Count varies throughout the course of a single minute suggests a far deeper kind of influence. But where in the natural energetic strata may we find this agent?

This is hard evidence of a more mysterious influence than a conventional models afford. One would therefore be reckless in as viewing these dynamic expressions as a combined effect of sunlight and electrostatic charging. Since intensified solar, cosmic ray, or electrostatic charging can not effect pulsing variations in Gamma emissions, we would seek afar more permeating and ultimately more potent force…a “dark modulator”.


What we have observed defies the contemporary model of radioactivity, where the temporal fluctuation of counts in the natural setting reveals a “dark” macroscopic influence. It is “dark” because we do not normally recognize its dynamic action. It is intriguing to note that the medium of radiation perhaps best serves us as an indicator of this dark macroscopic influence. whose movements permeate entire regions en masse. Please understand then that the radioactivity of matter is not simply an indicator of such macroscopic dark influence, it is a product of it. When under the influence of this fundamental permeation, radioactivity is projected out from matter.

It is clear that no merely inert force is responsible for the production of Gamma Ray variations. It is also evident that the typically early mechanistic model of Tesla explains only the more superficial kinematic actions at work in the roof copper. It strives to grant some rationale for the more overt Beta fluctuations, and offers some small perspective on the Gamma variations. But there are aspects of this latter phenomenon in which the early mechanistic model of Tesla utterly fails.

The curious pulsation in which both Beta and Gamma values consistently vary is correlated with changes in solar orientation. solar intensity, elevation, and meteorological conditions. When all of the data charts are examined, it is very clear that several conjugate processes are in operation. But these conjugate relationships do not simply relate with the kinematic forces, as our previous examination has attempted to show. In several of the data artifacts, we see a defined relationship between radioactive counts and the actual solar track during daylight hours. That aspect in which the radioactive counts literally “track” the solar intensity is a feature uncommon in radioactivity as conventionally known.

Because we note a significant Gamma Ray variation with meteorological conditions, we find further evidence that the phenomenon has little to do with either the Tesla Model or the reigning conventional theory. Man-made radioactive materials do not wane and waver with conditions of weather: of temperature, sunlight, barometric pressure, windflow, elevation, and diurnal hour — as my readings indicate. Not one of these parameters should effect changes in radioactivity. Nevertheless, the data stands. It is corroborated by former experimental masters, whose credibility exceeds my own.

The observed variations provide a compelling evidence that the phenomenon is not like any other artificial radioactivity. It is clear that this more mysterious agency acts upon the whole body volume of any radioactive sample produced by equivalent natural process. One notes with amazement the “atempic” or “arrhythmic” quality with which these radiations are being modulated, evidence that the dark modulator is no inert force. Inert forces do not exhibit such atempic rhythms. Indeed, one only observes such rhythms in systems which are thoroughly biological in nature. But where in the natural environment is such an enormous agency to be found? Where is this mysterious dark modulator?

The revelation comes now. We see it in the pulsating data. We see it because we understand what inert force cannot accomplish. We might indeed be deceived or hastily tempted to reference this dark modulator with some of its by-products — with the solar fluctuations, with electrostatic surges, with cosmic particle flow rates, with the moody weather — indeed, with the very winds! But it is none of these. Indeed, the dark modulator moves, guides, and shapes them all. And we will delve into its domain in our forthcoming series. Until then watch everywhere in Nature for the movements of a power whose deep and mysterious organizations shape the world, that dark world-permeating modulator by which “the wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell from where it has come, or where it is going”.


May I now extend my many thanks for the many kind persons who have encouraged this scientific adventure? They must be given to Thomas Buxton (coffee and keys), Leonard Medina (building history), Bruce Young (roof access), Dan Winter (every wonderful text on Dr. Gustav Le Bon and more), to Rich Napolitano (shocked expressions), to Michael Theroux (talking machines and short-wave), and especially… to my dear friend W. G. Lehr.




  • Benjamin, Park. “Are The X-Rays Identical With Draper’s Tithonic Rays?”, The Electrical Engineer, p. 191, 19 February 1896.
  • Dollard, Eric. Transverse And Longitudinal Electric Waves, 1988. Borderland Sciences Research Foundation. Video.
  • Freedman. W. H. (with C. T. Rittenhouse). “Shadow Pictures From The Arc and Sunlight”. The Electrical Engineer, 11 March 1896.
  • H. Hertz. Annalen der Physik, 31, 421, 1887.
  • H. Hertz. Annalen der Physik, 31, 983, 1887.
  • H. Hertz. “Ultraviolet Light of Sparks”. Wiedemann Annalen, 31, p. 983, 1887.
  • Hodges, N. “Light Rays Which Resemble Roentgen Rays”. The Electrical Engineer, Vol. 21, no. 409.
  • d’Infreville, Georges. “Shadowgraphs From Sunlight”. The Electrical Engineer, March 1896.
  • Ker, W. W. “Shadow Pictures By Arc Light Rays”. The Electrical Engineer, 25 March 1896.
  • Lenard, Phillip. “Radioactivity of Ultraviolet Light”. Annalen der Physik, 1.3, pp. 486-502, 1900.
  • Robertson, I. Hart. “Shadow Photographs From Sunlight”. The Electrical Engineer, 19 February 1896.
  • Tesla, Nikola. “Differences Of Ray Species”, “X-Rays From The Sun”, “Biologically Sensitive Streams”, “Grooved Lenard Windows Collimate Rays”. The Electrical Review, p. 207, 22 April 1896.
  • Tesla, Nikola. “Matter Into Ether”. The Electrical Review, 12 August 1896.
  • “Tesla Cosmic Ray Motor”, Brooklyn Eagle, 10 July 1932.
  • “Tesla Promises To Transmit Force”, New York Times, 1 1 July 1935.
  • “Expanding Sun Will Explode”, New York Herald Tribune, 18 August 1935.
  • “Sending of Messages To Planets Predicted By Dr. Tesla”, New York Times, 11 July 1937.
  • “Tesla, Who Predicted Radio, Now Looks Forward To Sending Waves To The Moon”, New York Herald Tribune, 22 August 1937.

This article was sourced from  Borderlands Vol. 53 No. 03

Download a Collection of Journal of Borderland Research

Download the Gerry Vassilatos Collection Here: