TrueLife - Dan Hawk - using satellites to hold corporations accountable

Episode Date: August 16, 2022

One on One Video Call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US🚨🚨Curious about the future of psychedelics? Imagine if Alan Watts started a secret society with Ram Dass and Hunter S. Thompson… now open the door. Use Promocode TRUELIFE for Get 25% off monthly or 30% off the annual plan For the first yearhttps://www.district216.com/Today we speak with the one and only Dan Hawk. From monitoring resources from space to monitoring culture from the ground.  Dan has brought up some fascinating points about how farmers can be the big winner in the world of climate change. Additionally, how the people can be United by monitoring resources from space. A fierce defender of people, the planet, and our Children’s future. Dan Hawk can be reached here for consultation, consulting, and coaching.https://ufnpd.wordpress.com/ One on One Video call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_USCheck out our YouTube:https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPzfOaFtA1hF8UhnuvOQnTgKcIYPI9Ni9&si=Jgg9ATGwzhzdmjkg

Darkness struck, a gut-punched theft, Sun ripped away, her health bereft. I roar at the void. This ain't just fate, a cosmic scam I spit my hate. The games rigged tight, shadows deal, blood on their hands, I'll never kneel. Yet in the rage, a crack ignites, occulted sparks cut through the nights. The scars my key, hermetic and stark. To see, to rise, I hunt in the dark, fumbling, fear. Hears through ruins maze, lights my war cry, born from the blaze.

The poem is Angels with Rifles. The track, I Am Sorrow, I Am Lust by Codex Serafini. Check out the entire song at the end of the cast. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the True Life podcast. We are here with an incredible individual. We were just having a little conversation about time. Mr. Dan Hawk, can you, for those that, may not know you in my audience should but for the maybe the one or two that don't would you be so

kind as to introduce yourself and uh tell them about you a little bit yeah well i i'm i'm dan hawk uh i'm i'm native american i'm ornita the airquair confederacy you know former military background army navy last serving on nuclear act as a nuclear reactor operator on best tech submarines. So, you know, I worked with NASA, no, Department of Energy, many different projects, you know, making carbon supplying it to Bikini Atoll for radio seizium mitigation, so plants could grow away radioactive free. You know, I worked with Dr. E. Yenks. We created the First Nations launched Tethered Aerostat program and launched the Bison Set in 2015. And from there, I worked with Department of State got us off to international traffic and arms regulation lists and now

working towards getting putting trouble people in space. So that's where I'm heading. Nice. I learned something new every time, Dan. I didn't know you had such a background working with nuclear technology. Well, I spent eight years in submarines. And my first submarine, I actually flew to Italy and caught our first submarine out of La, La, Lospesia, I think it's Lospesia, maybe. I forget the pronunciation, but from there, I got, I, I boarded SSN 673, which BUS would be the flying fish. And that was a 637 class submarine. And then shortly after that, about a year or two, I was transferred to a larger submarine, 630630, 6.

688 class submarine USS Salana. As someone who's been around and worked with nuclear technology like that, and what do you think, do you think that it's possible for us to see nuclear technology out in the world today? And if so, is it possible with like thorium reactors or is nuclear something we should be staying away from? Well, first of all, I would say that everything regarding the issue of carbon climate change should be on the table, including nuclear power. I have to say that, you know, there were no incidences when I was on board submarines. I have not had or been anywhere near any incidence on Navy submarines. You know, the SL1 was an Army first tria kind of reactor where they lived.

rods by hand and they learned an obvious lesson and people died in that one. And then, you know, there are some issues which, you know, a Three Mile Island that happened to do with, you know, I can tell you about that, but it was basically a condensate problem. They had tagged out one and then the other one failed and so that was a problem. So, you know, of course you have like the Fukushima, the Achi plant, which was, you know, obviously a disaster in large proportions regarding. the tsunami and what happened there and the fact that their, you know, their backup power supplies was flooded and they weren't able to work. So that was a problem there. But reality, though,

though, you know, is that the power that we provide can be safe if it's done right, mitigated properly. Had, you know, Japan's power supplies been, you know, their backup generators been in an area where they would not have been able to be flooded, would it have maintained some safety there and kept the reactor school, I believe so. So it's just a matter of how we think and believe in things and are able to back them up. But yes, nuclear power is definitely on the table when it comes to climate change.

Safe. Yeah, I have heard some interesting things about thorium and how the byproduct of thorium is not the type of nuclear waste that the older version of reactors would give off. And so it seems to me when we're facing disasters and the world is clamoring for energy, if we have the technology, we should be, like you said, it should be on the table. I've heard you say before that we have the technology to do these things right if we're willing to come together and work together to create the energy we need. Can you think of something else besides nuclear that would help fill that void?

Okay, so when we look at energy and technology, people, we see immediately that there are some that are going to be more green than others, some that are gray, greater than others, some that have different problems than others. People will say, well, we have wind power great. But look at, you know, we're disposing of the turbine blades, right? or if you have solar and then, you know, all of a sudden, you know, 20 years later, the solar panels no longer working, what do you do that? How do you dispose of those? When you're talking about electrical vehicles and, you know, our EV kind of concepts that we have to, we have to have extraction mining and then we have some problems with that that are gray, you know, and it could even be like child, you know, child labor and things like that.

And then the other part of that is is that what do we do with those batteries when we when we have to dispose of them? You know, the International Space Station, they just jettisoned like two, like two and a half tons of batteries from the International Space Station, creating, you know, that as a debris issue. You know, they just like dangling it off the International Space Station and kind of let it go, you know, and like, okay, you know, a big, big package, you know, like a couple tons. It's, you know, what do we do? So the problem what we have and we face, what we are faced in the United States and actually globally is that we don't externalize costs. So what does that mean? What does that mean? It says that, you know, when we want things, we want things now.

We want them cheap. And so what happens is that the disposal of these items, no matter what it is, okay, is put into comments. That means other people have to pick it up, the taxpayers have to pick up. And frequently, that is environmental racism. That is the ones who less likely have the ability to pay for that tab are the ones having to pick it up. And the ones that are the voiceless are the ones that are the people who are find themselves in these situations where, you know, they have environmental problems. And because of those things. But if we were to internalize the cost, if we make something, no matter what it is.

And we say, you know what? Here's from Cray to the Grave kind of concept that we build it to design it and we test it. And we bring it out to people where they can have it and then they can use it. And then at the end of life, this is how we dispose of it. And then it's paid for up front. Right. But what happens and what I believe would happen if that, if that was a case, is that the companies would then take that money, we say, hey, we're, we know we're taking that money for disposal up front, but

we're not going to dispose of it properly and we're not going to do it. So basically then it becomes a greed problem, right? So internalizing costs means that those costs are set aside for the disposal of the product. And if it's not, then that's, that's where the problem is, because right now it's not happening. And it doesn't matter what it is. So when we get back to technology and how we do things, it's all about. about ethics. And that's what it comes down to it. It's an ethical issue.

Yeah. It seems like that is built into the corporate structure. We privatize the profits, socialize the losses. If you look at the internet or any sort of thing that gets built, it's pretty much funded by taxpayers. And then the government gives out contracts to multinational corporations or even other corporations. Taxpayers build it.

Then they take it private and then they sell it back to everybody. And if they do have some sort of cost for the end or insurance or some sort of end waste product, that just goes right to the profits of those people. And I shouldn't say those people because I think I'm guilty of this idea of short-termism. The whole society we live in has been invaded by it and it permeates us. And I think that that's probably something that we could all work on. And I like to think we're changing from that. But it seems baked into the cake, this idea of short-term profits and not worrying about the long-term problems of what's going on. Now, as a younger guy, I can't remember a time where that wasn't there.

As someone who has been through much more experience and lived in different cultures than I have, has, have you seen the world without this problem, Dan? You know, when I was little, we had a community dump not too far away, you know, not understanding and realizing what was going on. But, you know, they were, we, you know, 55-gallon drums of toxic material being dumped in there. And it was on a hill. And below the hill was a creek. You know, where they placed it was, looking back at it was like, oh, my gosh, why did you do that? Because now they play, you know, they had, we had cars that were disposed there.

You know, we had, you know, batteries and, you know, different types of chemicals. And, you know, and I used to remember going there as a kid and playing there. It's like, oh, my gosh, take a BB gun and, you know, break bottles and stuff like that. I mean, it's like, you know, to think about that, that was, that would have been knowing what I know now would have been, no, that's wrong. That's horrifying. And, you know, it used to go there. It used to be little areas and patches where they had things burning, right? Right.

And so now you're looking at, you know, what's happening, you know, with the veterans and, hey, this idea of burn pits. And I happen to know somebody who's been around those burn pits. And they burned everything in those burn pits. And here's the thing what happened with, you know, I believe with Hurricane Betsy, right? when they put the, when they opened up the Egg Street landfill and they, because they needed a place to put the debris. They put it in there and then they covered it up. And then they had, then they created this, this nice, you know, nice, how would you say, home area, right? And so, so, you know, and so then, obviously, then what happened was that, and I shouldn't say obviously, but a community of black people then were living on top of the Egg Street landfill.

in Louisiana. And they're a cluster of cancers, right? This is a super fun say. But what was not known, right? So you can go to EPA and say, look, we have this chemical, this chemical, and this chemical. But what we don't know is when we put this chemical and this chemical together, right? So when you have a conglomerate, a bunch of chemicals put together, what do we have? What is the outcome of that?

And so that I think is a problem, right? That is a problem because there's no way of knowing what happens when you're taking a chemical, adding it to another chemical, and looking back in my childhood days, then lighting a match to it. And going like, what is in that smoke? You know, what is there? You know, what am I breathing? And so we are like, we don't know. And sometimes, you know, sometimes what we do, we don't realize, you know, the outcome of that. And then they didn't realize that in Egg Street landfill either, whether it wasn't an environmental discrimination issue, whether it was environmental racism.

It's like, you know, we have this beautiful, you know, this beautiful subdivision, you know, would you come live here and we'll build a school for you and we'll build parks and you can live here on top of this landfill? Is that the right thing to do? And, you know, and partly because of the fact that some of the chemicals below the land, you know, the X-Street landfill was, were mixed chemicals of things that we had no idea what are there. No, that's my belief. Okay. That's my understanding. But, yeah, it's not good. That's a pure profit move.

That's a piece of land that is not usable. And then a contractor comes, says, like, let's just bury it all, put some concrete on it. And then we'll build this low-income housing here and we'll charge people more money to live on. this land that couldn't have been used. That's a horrible idea. Yeah, you know, it was, it's even, you know, they had stuff sticking out of the, out of the, out of the ground. You know, you take a shovel and you dig it and you got, you got garbage. And it's like, it wasn't like what you were saying. It was probably even worse than that. So, you know, yeah, it's not, it's not a good, not a good thing. So we need to pay attention sometimes. And so this, this brings me to the idea of, of monitoring resources from

space and you have a lot of expertise and getting up satellites and working with different programs, government programs, state programs, and this idea that we can monitor resources from space. You had mentioned that that may have been one of the roadblocks from you getting a satellite up into space. Can you tell us a little bit about what we can monitor in space and what could be done if we could monitor stuff like resources from space? Well, we just recently just we were talking about that because the methane set is going to be launching relatively soon in October. Okay. That's an environmental defense fund project.

So we talk about what is capability. So if you, in this case, methane, the satellite is designed to see methane. Okay. But what is the resolution of the methane that you can see? Can you see methane coming from a pipe? Or can you know, can you see methane coming from, you know, all of the methane that's being released in the Black Hills because of all the, you know, 10 million dead trees? Yes. So there are, there are things that we can see and things that we can't see.

And so then it's a matter of what it is that you're trying to accomplish. What is it you're trying to do, right? So, you know, here I'm working on, you know, with John Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab, you know, a plastic. what they call a plastics camp. In other words, ocean plastics monitoring. How do you monitor ocean plastics from space? And so those are the questions that you have to ask. It's like, well, what resolution do you need? What can you see? Can you see vinyl compared to polyethylene as an example? And there's hundreds of different kinds of plastics. And you have medical waste. You have, you know, you have plastics in materials like the clothes that you wear, polyesteres. What is a

that you're looking for, how do you see that? And so why would you even want to monitor ocean plastics in the first place? So, you know, obviously, you know, one of the things that got my attention was, you know, when I seen a video of a whale that had, you know, 40 kilograms of plastics in his stomach, starved death because of the fact that it could eat real food, that really bothers me. And so you have to look at that. Okay, so what is the climate change perspective of that? our oceans, you know, they sequester, you know, 30 to 50% carbon dioxide.

So if you're changing the ecosystem of our ocean, you are changing the way that we upkick carbon dioxide into the ocean, right? And it has to do with plankton. So now we just have found out with, you know, why is plankton dying? Well, you know, there's, you know, there's study out there right now is that, you know, what has happened over years is that, you know, through pesticides. They have gone and, you know, run off into ditches and ditches into cricks and cricks into rivers and rivers into the ocean. And so now you have pesticides that appear to be problematic for zooplankton as an example. So we have to look at things in the big picture. So, you know, I mentioned one of the, maybe, you know, cast before this, that, you know, as a Native American, we see things that are.

all everything is connected right so we have this web and you have these strands so when you hurt one strand you're hurting the web and that's kind of what we're doing here is that you know is let's take let's take the zoo plankton as an example right so if you're if you're putting too much pesticides on your land right and it goes into you know into the ditch and into the creek and into the river and then into the ocean and then it's affecting zooplank then here's the case where one thing that we do is affecting something else. And so now who eats that zooplankton, right? So our aquatic life do. You know, they, you know, I think there's three different types of plankton. Fytoplankton, I believe is one zooplankton, the other. But the point being is that now we have, you know, the pesticide use

in the farm maybe in, you know, Wisconsin is now affecting zooplankton in our whales. So, well, we're Wisconsin, you know, we have cows. We don't, we don't do anything. Wales, right? But the point being is that what we do affects, it impacts everything else. Everything is connected. We can't say that it doesn't because the fact of the matter is it's true. Yeah. I agree with 100%. I think that we all can play a part. One place I think people come to loggerheads is that it seems to me that corporations have carte blanche of, you know, they can go to a third world country where there's no regulations and they can poison the fields, they can monocrop, and they can just do away with the runoff and there's no real ramifications for them.

And it seems to me that they are polluting on a scale that is 100, a thousand times more than the individual. Yet there's no real ramifications for them. And in fact, it seems to me that the corporations tend to be in charge of a lot of these climate change policies. And I just have a hard time believing that they're going to stop doing. things that make them lucrative. They're not going to get in the way of their own profit motive,

but they will do what people are calling greenwashing, where they're like, okay, let's, you know what we're going to do? We are going to give X amount of dollars to this, but they don't stop doing the monocle. They don't stop the problem that they're creating. And it just seems like the fox is in charge of the henhouse sometimes. I live in Hawaii, and we have Monsanto over here. And Hawaii is a very cultural,

sympathetic place. Like we love our oceans. We love the land. But yet we have these like Saginta and Monsanto over here. And they have so much money. Like if you go to Molokai, you'll go over there and you'll see nothing but farmland of like these GMO crops. And it's only corn. It's only this.

They're just monocropping. And there's no real way I have seen people, even though people protest, even though people don't want them, they are so big and have so much. that it's like a bohemist. It's like trying to move that whale when there's only 10 or 12 people. Do you find that to be the case? And so what are some strategies we could use to help those companies see what they're doing is wrong? Well, people with money, what do they like?

They like more money. Yeah, they do. Okay. So let's let's say that's true, right? Yeah. So what we have to do is you have to flip it, right? So if people are saying, well, wait a minute now, the screenwashing, that's not money for us. You have to make it money for them.

So how do you do that? So you make carbon a commodity. And as soon as you make carbon a commodity, now it's like, what did you just say? Like, oh my gosh, you mean I can sell that? You mean, I can make money by doing something with carbon. And now you have the mechanisms to deal with effectively. immediately carbon climate change. And so now, why is that so?

Because now you have the people with the money saying, this is what we need to do because we need to make more money. And so that's where that has to go. It has to go that way. And it's unfortunate, but, you know, there's caps, trades. You have sinks and you see what else. There's four of them. So you can cap something.

You can trade it. Oh, offset. Okay, so all of this, all of this is, if it's placed as a commodity, if it's a commodity, farmers, what do they do? They grow things. It's a cellulosic plant. It's carbon. You know, so, you know, you plant a tree. What is it?

It's carbon. And so the reality is, though, if you make carbon the commodity that it should be all along. Because what is gas? What is oil? It's carbon. It's a commodity. We don't see the rest of the carbon that we do as a commodity. like we do oil and gas.

If they were all commodity, anything, this carbon is ubiquitous. Carbon is everywhere. You can take a sample in the deepest ocean, and you can take the core in any ice cap, and what you will find is carbon. Carbon is everywhere. And so what's necessary is that we make carbon a commodity, and it has to be done. We had this at Congress were to say, look, carbon is now a commodity, and here it's value. Now you place a value on it, just like you place a barrel of oil.

And now the people who have money, who want more money, are going to say, I want to be a part of that. And that is when you start to see the movement on carbon climate change. What kind of policies, like what would those policies? Like, let's say Monsanto, like what would a carbon policy that effectively changes their actions? What would that look like? Would that be, okay, if you guys plant this much corn, you owe this much money? Or how do you get, how do you do you put a price on carbon per plant? Or how does that break down?

Is there any, do you know anything about that part of that? Here's what I would do. If you have one stock of corn. Okay. So what do you have? You add the corn and you have the stock. It's cellulosic. You know, the stock has got cellulosein and that's what it is.

That's what it is. Cone cellulosic is corn has a lot of sugar in it because that's we corn syrup, you know, it's got a lot of sugar is carbon. You know, sugar in the basis, you know, is C6 H12. 06. Okay. So you got one plant, one corn plant, stock, leaves, and the corn itself, right? And the cop, right? Yeah. If I was a farmer and I said, hey, carbon is now a commodity, right?

what I'm going to do is I'm going to take the corn off. I'm going to sell the corn, whatever I need to do. Put it ethanol or, you know, to food producers or, you know, or for feed for cattle or whatever they do with their corn. And now what you have left is the cob, right, the leaves and the stock. So what do you do? You carbonize it. And once you carbonize it, what are you going to do with it?

You're going to put it on the ground. You're going to put it on your land, right? And so what happens when you put it on your land? and it's now carbon. It's pyrogynous carbon. What is what's going to happen to it? You put it on your land. It's going to sequester that carbon dioxide for every one ton of carbon that you're putting on your land.

You're sequestering 3.6 tons of carbon dioxide. And so you're looking back, well, how does that happen? Well, Amazon people hundreds of years ago figured this out, right? So it's nothing more than, you know, in the old technology, we talk about slashed and burn, very kind of thing, right? But what you're going to do is if the farmer is tilling, you're going to take that carbon, they're going to till it under. And now you've got fertile soil, right? So now you've got carbon in the soil. So you have soil organic carbon.

And that's what's necessary, right? It's the soil organic carbon as a sink that's necessary for mitigating climate change. Because now you have, now what that farmer has done is they've created sustainable agriculture, the same way that the Amazon's did hundreds of years ago. So now, so the next time they plant, what's going to happen? Now that they have soil organic carbon that's increased in there, the next time that they raise their crop, the next time that they plant, their yield is going to be higher. And why is that so?

Because when water and carbon mix at the root, they have root sugar. What happens is cellulose, the cellulosic plant. Now you've got sugar that allows that plant to grow bigger. So now if that one cornstalk was four feet tall, next year it'll be four and a half feet tall or five feet tall. And instead of X number of bushels, let's say it's 100 bushels, now it's going to be 110 bushels, 15 bushels. Now you have a higher yield.

And so that's what has to happen. And it's nothing more than an education issue and an ability to take that stock, that leaves, that corn cob, and say, hey, what am I going to do with this? I'm going to carbonize it. I'm going to use it because now it is a carbon is a commodity. and I'm going to put it on my my land and I'm going to make my land more fertile and I'm going to have my next planting season. I'm going to have a higher yield. And that's how you have to think about this. How would they like would they weigh it and then fill out a form for the IRS?

Like, hey, I had X amount of tons of sequestered carbon. Like how would you, how can you, how do you manage what you don't measure? Like how would you measure that so that you can manage it? And how would that pay scale work? Well, you can measure carbon. You can, the same way that you would, you know, weigh anything else. No way, 100 pounds of seed, right? Okay.

What is it? What is how one ton of feathers and one ton of bricks, the same, right? One time. But what I'm saying here is, too, is what's happening in space, along with methane, sat, green, you know, GHS greenhouse gases and, you know, those other types of satellites. But, you know, we're getting to the point where, and we're close, if not already, right? Being able to monitor carbon as a sequestration from space. So you won't be able to cheat.

So if you have a corporation that says, hey, I just planted 1,000 acres, and this is what I planted, and this is how much carbon that I sequestered, we can say, wait a minute now, you only planted 990 acres and not, you know, a thousand. So you can't, we're getting to the point where we won't be able to cheat. And we don't want people to cheat. I mean, because what does that do? That doesn't help. That doesn't help what climate change is supposed to do. We're all in this together, right?

So that gets back to the, you know, the beginning corporate thing about, you know, the idea of cheating, right? And, you know, for profit, right? And so what we need to do is we have, so it doesn't help much with having a, the law or some type of, you know, some type of, you know, let's say farm service ability to do something without having to monitoring capability of that. And it's the same thing, you know, crop insurance, right? So you've got a crop, hey, my crop's dead. And they strip row it or they leave a strip and they say, okay, come in here and check it. So here's my rural corn that I did not cut so you can check the growth and make sure that it's, you know, it's okay.

or how much of a loss it I actually take. So I think there's ways that you can monitor that. So it's a policy issue, a policy decision, but the reality is that if you make carbon a commodity, those types of monitoring devices have to come about and partly from space, because there's going to be ways that we can monitor from space. So if there's something really outside of the norm,

that's like that doesn't look right, then you can send troops to the ground and say, okay, let's look at this and let's take another look at it. And let's see, let's check it out. That's called ground-truthing. So there's some ground-truthing, yeah. Yeah, I was just thinking, as you were speaking about that, I'm pretty confident that we have pretty incredible satellites right now

that can see not only maybe different gases, but can definitely see license plates and land stuff. So if we have this technology, shouldn't we be able to have satellites that can monitor corporations throughout the world? And like what I think that maybe there should be some sort of public shaming. Like if we have a satellite that can see Monsanto dumping poison into the ocean, then that should be put on TV and maybe their charter should be pulled from the stock market. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be a corporation if they're going to poison the earth.

You know, maybe there should be tears and levels of corporate malfeasance and potentially. potentially even jail time for the CEOs and boards of directors when they're making conscious decisions to do things they know are wrong. And we have the technology to do that. If we have satellites that can see the methane, if we have satellites that can see the land, then there's no doubt that we have the capability of watching or seeing corporations that are in complete violation of some sort of code. I'd imagine in some country, like, we should be able to hold them accountable for the problems they're doing. But it doesn't seem like there's a, there's a will for that.

And maybe that's corruption. Maybe that's lobbyists. Maybe that's politicians or maybe that's a lack of us as citizens of following through. But shouldn't there be some sort of mechanism for penalties by using satellites in space to see what they're doing? Well, there's a couple problems. You know, the first one for us, again, Native American, right? So we're creating a blockchain, a blockchain that's distributed across, you know, North America, you know, in Canada and America and also in space, right?

But part of that has to do with evidence locker, right? So the evidence locker is, you know, being able to keep the raw data so that it's not manipulated in any way. So if you're a tribal government and you're seeing that something is happening with your tribal, your trust. let's say a treaty right. Let's say it's timber or grazing, right? So here's a case where you have, let's say, a rancher that says, you know, you know, George, we're grazing 1,000 head of cattle when in reality they're grazing 1,200 head of cattle, right?

So the issue there is that, well, how do you know that there's an additional two hundred head of cattle? Well, so, you know, the satellite would be able, okay, we count it. Yeah, you have 200 head. extra. You need to owe this extra 200 head of cattle that you're grazing that you said you weren't grazing. And they said, well, wait a minute now. That over there, that does that's outcrops. Those are not, those are cattle. Those are, you know, those are trees or so yeah, okay, you caught me. I was grazing an extra 150 head of cattle and not 200. And so, so then what you do is you're going to arbitration and

say, look, yeah, I made a stake. I made an error. So from the tribal government point of view, then would say to the ranch, okay, let's come to an agreement. Then, you know, don't do that again next time. Right. So then it's like, oh, I better not do that because they're watching me, right? Yeah. So that's the ground truthing. But the part of that is the evidence locker then says, says, here is the real data.

This is the real data that we actually took. And yes, the farmer was right. There was some outcrops. There was some trees. Because when we went to ground truth it, there was, right? So then what we do is we, then we say to the evidence locker of the raw data, we say, here's what it really was. But when we go into court, when we go into arbitration, the court's going to say, well, what is the real data? And so, you know, how did you come to this and say, okay, here's the real data.

It has not been manipulated. And here's what we manipulated because there was outcrops. There was trees that were, we thought were cows, but they really weren't. So that's how that has to work. So you have to have the ability to have, you know, the firsthand knowledge, which we don't have. So tribal people do not have. So if we go into, we try to go into court, the first thing, courts can say, well, is that your data? I'm going to say, no, that belongs to so-and-so, who owns that satellite, who owns that, that, that, you know, that, that, that camera that provides that information.

And so we, it's not our data. It's not our real. It's not ours, right? It's somebody else's third party is fourth party. And so part of the issue then, George, is like, if you're going into court and you see something happening as well, what is the evidence of that? And so you have to be able to have a chain of custody to be able to prove this or not, right? And so if you have, we're saying farmers are putting, you know, pesticides on their land. Well, which farmer is it?

You know, how to, so when you have zooplankton in the ocean that's dying, which farmer is the one, how do you go back? How do you trace it back to a specific farmer that says you did this, right? And so it has to do with evidence and the ability to hold people accountable. So it gets back to ethics again in the very beginnings. Like it has to be an ethical thing, right? Because we can't all, we don't have the ability to catch everyone. And so, yeah, it's a problem. Yeah.

But that's kind of how I see things, right? Yeah. Yeah, I'm hopeful. Can people contribute somewhere for you guys to speed up the process, or is there a place people can go to support what you guys are doing? Well, obviously listening to you, George, is a big talk. So you could be our marketing person. I'm in. I'm in.

But, yeah, I mean, how to help, you know, it would be, I would say, not for me personally, but right, you know, so we all know that there are places that are near you that do good things that are, that we would say, very supportive of the environment. And the environment is important for me. Okay, so why so? it doesn't matter how you vote. It doesn't matter the color of your skin. If you have a good environment, that's important, right? And that's how I see it.

So an environment supports everyone. It supports, you know, it supports, you know, either side of the aisle. It supports our animals, our birds, our, you know, the way that we live, you know, are how we feel. and we go outside and we see something that's clean and nice and pristine compared to something that's dirty and awful or smells bad or, you know, smoky or whatever. You know, it is a way that we have to perceive what we are as human beings on this what we call blue dot, right? So I'm all for environmental things because as soon as you have clean water, clean air, a clean environment, that supports everything in all that we do. And the reality is that when we look at for the seventh generation,

our generations to follow behind us, that's the legacy that we want to provide to them is a clean environment, you know, clean air, clean water. So I get really upset when the EPA cuts back on water quality or air quality because that hurts everyone. It just doesn't hurt a single, oh, it's just that, creek or it's just, you know, that, you know, you're, you're polluting over here. It's this coal fire plant or whatever and it's that area. But no, it affects everybody, you know, going back to the idea

of the web and everything is connected. And that's how we have to see it. And people don't see it that way. They see it as local. There's like, you know what? That creek's dirty, but it's not, our creek over here is clean. And so that it's okay to make that one dirty, but it's okay for us to have a clean creek you know and it's like and that bothers me yeah that's such a better outlook i and i i i think i think a lot of people are waking up to this idea that we are one organism and even though like your creek might be clean the fact that this one is polluted means that pollution's headed your way it may not be here yet but it's already affecting you because it's affecting people downstream or upstream and you can't hide you can't you can't

run away from something that's attacking you because it's going to catch up to you sooner or later. You might think you're ahead of the wave or you might think that you didn't catch the virus, but the fact that the world around you is suffering means that you too are in a world of suffering. And so I really admire the idea of looking at the world like a web and understanding every strand touches another strand no matter how far away that strand is. I sometimes it brings me back to this idea of language dan and i i know that in english we have words that explain everything however in english because it's such a big language we're able to explain things away like sometimes you got so many words that you can say enough

things where they don't even mean anything and i'm wondering i know that i don't know this but i believe that in some of the indigenous languages, they had different words for concepts. And I'm wondering if the native language that a lot of the indigenous people speak shapes the way they think. It seems that they didn't have a word for owning the land and they didn't have these concepts that seem to be so divisive. How do you think that different languages, or perhaps you could speak a little bit about the Iroquois language and how it affects the way people think or the way indigenous languages makes people think. Oh wow. You know, I'll give you a little story. Okay. When my grandmother was young, she was blind for a little while. I'm going to get emotional,

but she was blind for a little while in writing on the buckboard with her dad. they were going along an area with Duck Creek, which would be, for us to be Second Ridge. And there was a pond. And she said to her dad in Oneida, there, well, I shouldn't say, Eonida. She said there were, there was fairies. there was fairies dancing on the pond and she was blind. Yeah. And in that conversation with her dad,

and she realized later that there was no such word. There was no, there was no translation for fairies dancing on the pond. And so I come to find out later that, you know, the translation, the closest one was sky people. Yeah, so how we, and you know, people claim, they claim, you know, it's true that when we are signing treaties, that what was happening was a lot of things were happening were missing in translation. Yeah. And that was many of the reasons why, you know, tribal people lost their land and that kind of thing is because of maybe not being particularly. dishonest, but in fact that many of the things that were talked about and displayed were not

accurate. They were misinterpreted or misunderstood. And that's kind of how I see it too, is that, you know, if you're not talking the same language, things are going to get missed. And that brings me back to the idea of, you know, what we're doing with satellites. It's, you know, when we're talking code, the code that we talk is the same code that everybody else talks. We're talking the same language. So there are things out there that level the playing field that we have the ability to use and to do that is effective for everyone. When I give code to a coder, they know what it is.

And regardless of who I am. So there are ways that we can communicate that are that level of playing field. And I say that in a way that we have not been dealt with fairly as far as a level playing field is from the Native American perspective and point of view. A lot of it has to do with environmental racism, which I'm definitely against. And the idea that they prevented us from going into space to monitor our resources, You know, I just recently I seen a post about, you know, the Colorado River and, you know, this is starting to, you know, the water starting to wane. And it's going like, okay, well, you know, there was a time where we wanted to go to space and to monitor our water, you know, but they prevented us from doing it. So it's kind of ironic in a way that the very thing that they try to prevent us from doing is now happening.

So, yeah, it's very hurtful, very painful. Yeah, it's it's it's it's not a it's not a coincidence. It's a you know, I don't really believe in coincidence. Is a coincidence is what you get when you apply a bad theory or when you don't have all the information, you know, the fact that you want to monitor resources from space and the prevailing power doesn't want you to means they're hiding something. You know, and when we talk about language, we one thing, we can describe things different, but we can all see an image. And in that image, we can see closer to the truth than a language that hides things. It's easy to hide things with language. Some people say language was used for, was maybe invented for lying. But if we see an image and we see a waterway being dried up, then we know there's a problem.

You know, and I really think that it's even happening today when we look at language and we look at the way it's, used to manipulate people. Let's fast forward into the future. Like, what are user agreements? Does anyone even read the user agreement when you have a new piece of software or you're using Facebook or you're using anything? They are able to take all of your land, your digital land, your digital fingerprint, and they take that for them and they monetize it. But you sign on to it without really knowing about it. Even if you do read the legal agreements, how many among us speak legalese? How many of us thoroughly understand what 24, for section 5, 24B really means.

A lot of people don't have the time or the mental capacity or have gone to law school to understand that. And in a way, it's the same way they stole land from people in the past. They're stealing the rights from people today. But not only the rights, they're stealing resources. They're stealing our children's future. They're stealing the air we breathe. You know, on some levels,

if we don't get ahead and create, the laws for climate change, then we will be subject to the laws that other people create. So I really hope people take the time to get over the idea of fighting about climate change and start getting on board about making their own rules for climate change. I think that the very people should be setting the standards for the rules instead of allowing the large corporations and governments to come in and make the rules. You know, we just recently saw a law get passed where they, they allowed the carried interest for millionaires and billionaires to be pushed through in this thing. And I realized there must always be some sort of compromise, but it seems too often that compromise falls on the good side of the corporate and government powers.

And I am all for people standing up and fighting for their rights. I don't want anything for free, but I think we need a fair deal. What say you about getting ourselves a fair deal? As someone who is a fighter, as someone who's been on submarines, as someone who stands up for his people, what kind of motivation and what kind of ideas can you help younger people like myself and maybe people watching? What kind of hope can you give us?

So a fair deal. Wow. You're asking for a lot. But, okay, so as young people, right, okay, I see, I see, we have to look at the good in things, right? So, yeah, and that's what I would say to somebody who's young, you know, and I have in my, in my, in my, in my, in my, my, in my, my, my portfolio of marketing kind of things. I said, I have this young native girl, and she's pointing to a space, and she's saying, I want to be an astronaut. So it's getting to our little, in their case, our, you know, Native American little kids and saying, hey, what do you want to be when you grew up? And you're going to say, well, you want to be a firefighter or a policeman.

I said, no, you're going to be an astronaut. So, you know, the idea there is that we cannot limit our children's ability to aspire to something, right? Yeah. And we have to give them that ability and want to do that, you know. So what can they aspire to be? So in this case, I'm saying an astronaut. But it's our responsibility to give our kids a clean environment or walking into something, you know, say, well, you know, let's say we're talking about taxes. Oh, we just have this tax bill.

And now we're passing these, you know, that payment has to be paid by the next generation, our kids and our grandchildren. Yep. And so what we have to say then is what they're paying. paying for has to be worth something. Yeah. Yes. It has to be, if they're going to pay extra money for what we're doing today for them because we didn't take care of what we were supposed to. And we didn't, if we didn't internalize the cost and we're now passing that on to them to our next generation to our kids, it has to be worth something at the end of the day. And so what is it that we, what is it that we

want, right? So we shouldn't want want war. We should we should want peace. We should want to be able to work together. We should have a global economy that's that's truly global, that, you know, that we have fairness in, you know, in our exports and our imports, that, you know, we take care of our garbage and dispose of it properly, that, you know, that we have people who are really poor have the ability to do nice, good things, right? You know, you know, maybe own a car or home, you know, maybe have food or clean water. So, you know, it just depends. And so where we are at in the world and how we view things is important.

You know, and I have to mention, you know, like, you know, maybe I've done in the past in one of your pods before is that if we're looking at climate change. Okay. So, you know, obviously, you know, I'm a dust bowl guy, right? So, you know, a lot of people died in and, you know, million were displaced. But if you're talking about global climate change, right? And I see that, you know, there's some reports that, you know, Bangladesh is an example, will lose, you know, maybe 15, 15 percent of their land by 2050 that would affect 18 million people.

Like, okay, 18 million people, that sounds like a lot of people. Where are they going to go? You know, what are they going to do? And so when we're talking about a global economy, a global place, you know, When we talk about 18 million people as, let's say, climate change refugees, where are they going to go? And they're going to come to America, you know, where are they going to go? And so I think about these things because that affects everybody else. That affects everything else.

It affects our food. It affects water. It affects transportation. It affects livelihoods. It affects their life. their education, their children's education, their ability to do things. You know, so, and that's just one place. There's going to be many places like that.

And so they're going to be winners and losers in climate change. And the losers are going to be really, you know, they're going to be affected. They're going to be impacted in difficult ways. And we're going to see a lot of loss of life. And so we have to come together when we're talking to these kids that are growing up, that are our kids and our next generation and generations after us. How are we going to set them up for things like that that are going to happen? How are we going to say that when this happens, this is going to happen,

and this is how we go to take care of it, or how we have to deal with it, or how we are going to help and support it or mitigate it? Or in some cases, some people are going to raise arms and they're going to, like, we're not going to let these people in. And we're going to, you know, we're going to have our own militia to keep that from happening. We have got to come up with good policies to start dealing with those things now because it's going to start to happen. And we see some of those, you know, that Wrangling is going on right now, like, overseas, you know, with, you know, the reactive nitrogen and, you know, to take over Sri Lanka and things like that. I think that's worth the very beginning.

And I mentioned before, you know, when the climate change, where it's a 10-round matter. boxing match, right? And we're not even in the ring yet. So we're going to have to find a way to start dealing with these things. And then we have to pass it on to our children that are going to have to understand what it is that we're doing today, something like that. Yeah. Focusing on the future and providing the youth of tomorrow with opportunity seems to be the best way to solve problems. And I really like what you said about if we're going to try and tax people now, we should make sure, like it's our responsibility to make sure that that money goes

towards a better future for everyone. And I think that that is something that we could all focus on. Like we can hold people accountable if we come together and we have a, if we, if we as people can come together and we, if we as people can come together and, and just narrow down some things that we all agree on, and there's plenty to agree on. I think that we could start holding people accountable. I really think that the future, our kids,

and the kind of future we want to live in is something that should be part of the conversation about climate change. Too often it becomes a divisive issue where it's, for somehow it turns into Republicans versus Democrats, which really has nothing to do with climate change. You know, what it should. should be more about what kind of future do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a world

where it's a top-down structure where people tell us what the climate should be, or people tell us what our kids can do, or are we going to have to, you know, circle around and have climate refugees pour into different places because there's nowhere for them to live? but I really think there's some good conversations we could have that would benefit everybody instead of it devolving into a fight. And sometimes I think that the divisive wedged is placed on us so that we don't have a shot at the table. Does that kind of make sense? What I come from, they have a saying that says, if you don't have a seat at the table, then you're on the menu. And I think that people are being purposely divided on the topic of climate change so they don't come together and see that we have a seat at the table.

What do you think about that? We need to reframe it different. Yeah. This is all nothing about reframing, right? Yeah. If we make carbon a commodity, does it matter if there's climate change? It doesn't. Because now what you've done is you made it a commodity just like oil and gas.

So people who don't believe in climate change, does it matter? If you're making money and you're doing carbon offsets, does it matter if there's climate change? And so that's what we have to do. It's just like, we have to do this differently. And so that it does not matter whether one person believes in climate change or not, because it's a matter about, as an example, we go back to that cornstock. And you're selling your cornstalk like you normally would, but now you're taking your carbon, you're taking your cornstalk, turn it into carbon, you're putting it in the ground.

You're getting a higher yield. And you're sinking carbon. So if there is climate change, then, oh, by the way, you know, I just sunk some carbon. So I'm a climate change person now, right? But that person doesn't have to be a climate change person. That could be just the farmer saying, hey, I don't believe in the climate change. But, yeah, I believe that, you know, if we put some carbon in the ground, we got some sustainable agriculture here, I can believe in that. That I can believe in, but I don't believe in the climate change.

But I know that if I put some carbon in the ground and plants are cellulosic and when they grow, they need carbon to do that, then I'm a farmer guy. Yeah, I'll do that. And the reason why we need to do that is to reframe it is because we are divided, right? And so in order to get over the divisiveness is to say, what can we do that it doesn't matter? And so what I just gave you in his example, it doesn't matter. You know, to the farmer, it does, hey, I don't believe in climate change, but I will put carbon in the ground because that helps my plants. And now I have a higher yield. And now I can, now I have more to sell.

Now I get more money in my pocket. Plus, oh, by the way, you know, I've sunk carbon. So I get some carbon credits for that. And that's more money in my pocket. Now I got more money because I've sunk carbon and now I have a higher yield. And so that's what the reality. That's where we have to go. It has to be a win-win for everyone.

And because if we're talking about a win for half and not a win for the other half, that is when we get, that's when we get like, nope, nope, I don't believe in carbon. I don't believe in climate change. And the other half says, yeah, I believe in climate change. And then we're fighting. So what we need to do is we need to find something in the middle that allows. So if there is, I'm just saying, if there is climate change, then what we've done is we started the process to mitigate, regardless of whether it's true or not. Right.

And so that's kind of what I'm saying is that there is a, there is ways to bring people together to, deal with climate change without them even knowing about it, right? And that knowing about it is like, yeah, you create some sustainable agriculture on your, on your land. And without even knowing about it, you've helped and supported climate change. And that's kind of how I see it. Yeah, maybe there could be some sort of like a carbon dividend, you know, like maybe if you, maybe if you sequester carbon or if you, you know, you're doing.

something to carbon capture, then you get a dividend because you're making the world a little bit better. Like we, if Lord knows, we can just print billions of dollars and give it away. So why can't we have a fund for people that are participating in the climate, in the climate economy? You know, if we had a climate economy or if we had some sort of corporation that was even, you know what? If we have, what if we had some sort of, what if we had some sort of corporate structure that put satellites in space and was monitoring carbon. And you could fill out like a W7 or something, some sort of tax form that says you sequestered this much.

And then you could get a rebate back. I think if you could start putting in financial dividends and financial rewards or basically incentives for doing the right thing and you would see people begin to participate in that. And I don't see why that couldn't be done. It seems plausible to me. And then the people, regardless of how they felt about climate change, they could see people getting dividends. Who doesn't want to get a dividend for doing the right thing? You could reward people for good behavior, for making the planet better.

And then, you know, that could be a slow move into decarbonizing and getting people comfortable with the word climate change. And it could be something people rallied around. One part I think that scares people is this dystopian idea that, The carbon climate change objective is to charge the individual for the air they breathe. And like, you know, that seems kind of far out there. But, you know, if everybody has a climate or everybody has a carbon footprint, it almost sounds like, hey, we want to charge all the air you breathe. And you're like, wait a minute. Like, I've been breathing this stuff forever.

You know, I don't think people really want to go there, but that rhetoric is out there. How would you diffuse that kind of rhetoric? Well, it goes back with, it goes back to, you know, to number one, you know, words matter, right? So we can say that, you know, if we create this, this carbon as a commodity, right? We treat carbon as a commodity. Now we speak, let's change the language to, let's change the language to brokers and commodities and financial people. And we change the language that, so that's changed to the language. that they know.

So it does now we're no longer in the language of, of environment. We change to the language of money and a commodity and as a product. And now it, now what you've done is you've neutralized the, the divisiveness. And so again, if you go back to even saying you're doing the right thing,

that's, that's dividing right there. That's a dividing issue because people are not going to want to do the right thing. They're like, no, I don't want to do the right thing because I'm against it. For whatever reason, you're against it. And you will find people like that. But if you change the language that speaks to everyone without having a division in it, if it's money language or if it's a financial language or if it's a policy language that is neutral.

and so that if you're sinking carbon, it's not a good thing. You're not helping anything. It's just that this is the policy. Oh, yeah, okay, it's policy. Well, okay, I guess I'll do it. And so that is where we need to go is we need to be in a neutral setting. We have to treat carbon as a commodity. It has to be for everyone.

And everyone can then get on board with it, whether they believe in climate change or not. And that is what I think is going to matter at the end of the day, is that all along, you know, we should have been treating carbon as a commodity. It's the oil and gas, but we see it as oil and gas. We don't see it as carbon commodity, what it really is. So we need to reframe things so that everything is done on a carbon commodity basis. And now you're talking to language of money.

And like I said before, you know, with the people who have money, what do they want? They want more money. And so in that respect, it is the people who have the money who have the ability to do this because why? They want more money. And so that's kind of what I'm saying is that, you know, it's unfortunate that the people, you know, Native Americans are those people that are voiceless have no say. But if you can put it in a way that people who have the money to have the power to say, wow, I sure could use more money. because I don't have enough.

And I want to do this. And they are the ones who are the ones who are going to do it. Now, people complain about like, well, Elon Musk, he's a billionaire. He's going into space. He's making rockets. Well, he's got the money. And he's doing it. And he's going to create more rockets.

He's going to build more satellites. He's going to do more things. And so the people who have the ability to do those things are the ones that are going to have to step forward and say, yep, okay, yep. And I'm not saying Dan's, no, Dan said this. This is what's wrong. But the point being is that if carbon is a commodity, there are smart people out there that can figure this out so that it is, it is neutral and equal that allows everyone to play the game. And who's going to win at the end? The environment's going to win in the end. And when that happens, we all win in the end. That's how I see it. Yeah.

I'm trying to wrap my brain around. So in today's policy, like the people that have the most carbon, is that a positive or is that a negative? Like, if they're producing a lot of carbon, do they get penalized for that or do they get rewarded for it? It seems like I don't thoroughly understand the way it works. Like if you're a rocket company and you're just blasting rockets into space, like you're creating a lot of carbon, you're creating a lot more than you're, you're creating a lot more than you're. maybe even a whole city, you know, and if that's the case, shouldn't that person be responsible for paying more for that? I mean, if we look at carbon as a natural capital, an individual, if we look at carbon as a commodity, commodities are traded. Commodities are worth something.

So I as an individual, I am constantly creating carbon, thus I am creating some sort of commodity, should I be paid for that commodity or should I be penalized for that commodity? It seems like it's a weird tradeoff because people that are polluters are putting too much carbon out there. So is there a, I mean, is that what the cap and trade is? Like, okay, you can produce this much, but anything over, you get in trouble, but anything this much will you can sell. Can an individual sell their carbon? Like, it seems odd to me a little bit. Well, I guess that's set in policy. But if you're a farmer, farmers are winners, right?

They have the land and the equipment to sink carbon. And to be honest with you, George, if we're going to get anywhere out of mitigating climate change, it's going to be the farmers. Okay. They don't even realize it yet. You know, so they don't understand. Dan, what are you talking about sinking carbon? What do you mean farmers can have the equipment and the land? They may say, oh, yeah, we got the land.

We have equipment. How does that work? How do we, how do we sink carbon, you know? And so that becomes that issue. And so the reality is that, you know, the farmers are the ones who are going to be our biggest players and biggest winners in the carbon climate change market. And they're the ones that are rallying mostly against it. It's like, you know, I don't understand why. And I think maybe I should step back.

Maybe I do understand the reason why it's because of what's happening in the Netherlands because it has to do with nitrogen. right the react of nitrogen so when we're dealing first of all when we're dealing with climate change it has to be through the lens of carbon it cannot be through the lens of nitrogen it's not going to work you know you can't fix climate change carbon climate change with nitrogen that doesn't work that that's the wrong thing right it's the wrong element and so that's the way that has to be but the farmers are they're going to be the big winners right and so um i think a lot of that has to go back to, you know, the 1935, the Soil Conservation Act and how we got, how we were to get out of the dust bowl, right? And that 1935, that act has a lot of prescription in it, a lot of things

that farmers can do to mitigate climate change outside of sinking carbon. So, for example, one of the things that they recommended in there was the idea of shelter belts. So a shelter belt is nothing but a row of trees, let's say, between two strips of land, between two fields as an example, right? So when the wind blows, there's this line of trees, then kind of keeps the soil in place. It kind of prevents that from happening. That's the shelter belt, right? So if you had the shelter belt and it's one row of trees,

what we really need to do is we need to have two rows of trees or three rows of trees. Now, if you take all the farmland and you said, here's the shelter belts, all the shelter belts that were created back in the 1930s and say, you know what, let's add an extra row of trees or two. What would happen? You know, how many trees would that be? That's a lot. What would happen to the topsoil?

We'd be able to sequester more topsoil, keep it from blowing around. And so, you know, they created things like hedge rows. And back then, you know, some of the farms were paid not to farm, right? And they put it in a conservation program. They had some of the farms were put into trees. Some of their lands were actually put into trees and they planted trees. But outside of that, of course, is the sinking of carbon itself, right? It is the actual, like the stock I was telling you about carbonizing it, putting it around.

And then now you have sustainable agriculture. So there's a ways that they can do it. But farmers have not yet figured this out that they're actually the large winners in climate change as far as a carbon as a commodity. They just have to realize what it is that they're dealing with. And so far they have not. They're completely lost. That's a great point. I think that if they're able to come up with a roadmap and just be able to see themselves as the winner in climate change,

I think it would be a game changer. Yes, absolutely. Man, that, it gives me a lot to think about, and I got to tell you, I really enjoy you taking some time to spend with me in the audience, and I feel like I learned so much, and I get a different perspective than I had even the last time we talk. And I really think that it helps people to listen to different points of view and different cultural points of view and different points of view, like even learning about the Dust Bowl,

I guess it's if you don't know your past, you don't know your future. And when we can look back to events like the Dust Bowl, we can look back to, you know, the way we treated or stole land from people. We can see these things happening again. It's, it's, it may not be that history repeats, but it definitely rhymes. And we are on the, the turn again. And it seems that we should be able to mitigate these damages if we just learn from our past. I'm really thankful, Dan, that you're spending time helping me learn and other people learn, and I look forward to our conversations. And is there anything else that you wanted to leave people with?

And where can they find you again to help the cause? Well, United First Nations Planetary Defense, gmail.com. So yeah, I'm looking forward to our first intertribal space conference coming up in November, you know, bringing tribal leaders together with the space industry. That's going to be a huge thing for us, you know, we've not been in space before. So it's going to be interesting in how we can work together and to be able to do that. Yeah, so until next time, I appreciate, you know, also talking to you, George. Yeah.

I'm hoping that maybe some of the things that I say will spark someone to say, oh, my gosh, you know, we better check into this. We better do something about it or, you know, call the action, right? Yes. And so, you know, that's kind of how I see it. And I'm, you know, I'm grateful for the opportunity to, you know, to say what I think, you know, and obviously I'm just me. but hopefully some of it makes sense to some people that they like, oh, I never thought of it that way before. I think that you speak for a lot of people that maybe don't have the background that you have. And I think that you have a unique background and not only serving on submarines and serving the country,

but also serving your people and serving all the people. And you have an unbelievable idea of what's happening in the world of space. That's a rare combination for someone to happen. I also think that you got some speaking gigs coming up. And let's say that people watch this and they wanted you to come speak at event. Are you available to do that? Yeah, I am. You know, I know that a Sue Space Summit, I mean, a Sue Summit is coming,

economic summits coming up at the end of September, October, the Intertribal Space Conference in November, the end of November, I'll be going to England to talk about space traffic management. And I think a couple other places after that, Vienna maybe. And I got, you know, yeah, a lot of stuff going on. And so I'm happy to be of assistance to anyone who is interested in listening to what I have to say. Fantastic. And so if they wanted to get you to come to speak.

speak at a event. They could reach you at the First Nations Defense Fund? It would be United First Nations Planetary Defense. It would be UFNPD at WordPress.com. Okay. Perfect. Ladies and gentlemen, you heard it here. I hope that you got to take away and enjoy as much as I did. I've gotten some awesome feedback, Dan. And I'm looking forward to our next meeting. And thank you very much for today. I really enjoy the conversation. And I'm thankful that people like you were out there and helping people learn and being on the front lines and standing up to the people that need standing up to. You're an inspiration, my friend. All right. Thank you. Yes, you're welcome. Nice. Aloha, everybody. Okay. Bye. See you.