Top NASA Official Jailed Under Suspicious Circumstances

a reply to: Navarro

The policy of "Never A Straight Answer" was the brainchild of this man.

There is no such policy, you are lying or have been lied to..

With that mindset, no wonder you believe he's been jailed under suspicious circumstances.

As has been shown he's a just a communications manager, he knows no secrets.

Nice flag bait though, the disclosure gang are loving this I see!

a reply to: Chadwickus

Nice flag bait though, the disclosure gang are loving this I see!

That seems to be the new thing here lately.

The truth doesn't matter as long as you can make up your own answers.

The ol' dude was ultimately low on the totem pole at KSC, as has been pointed out several times now. What we have is an elderly pervert confessing. Considering his age, and how long he's likely been a predator, do we really care why he confessed? Some of you people are bordering on condoning molestation/dismissing victims because of the employer & wishful thinking

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Just because you don't work with the stuff directly doesn't mean your security access on-network prevents you from seeing it

Problem is they aren't firing him for having work related secure files on his computer...they fired him for kiddie porn.

Sometimes it really is what they say it is...and you know as well as I do that not everything is a conspiracy.

And sometimes a perv working for NASA is just that a sick twisted kiddie porn watching( and supposedly making ) perv that was caught.

I'm no attorney, but I'm confident that anything discovered during a search which wasn't specifically listed in the warrant, is inadmissible in court. If a warrant is served for the written purpose of searching for "security violations," then any discovery of child pornography can't be prosecuted, as it's not relevant to the court-ordered scope of the investigation.

A prosecutor could argue that he is not trustable because he has supposed kiddie porn, and that has a LOT to do with security.

originally posted by: Navarro
The man specifically states that he manages NASA COMSEC.

No, no he doesn't.

originally posted by: Navarro
He assigns himself the title of "NASA COMSEC Administrator," which sounds very official. He goes on to say that he "manage(s) the NASA Central Office of Record for COMSEC Accounting," which suggests that he's NASA's top official when it comes to Communications Security.

This doesn't suggest anything of the sort. It suggests exactly what it says - that he managed one of the offices within NASA COMSEC. To somehow inflate this to "Manager of NASA Comsec" is like taking the title "Office Manager" and inferring that they are the senior VP.

You seem to have completed ignored the word "Accounting". Not even "glossed over" but "completely ignored its inconvenient existence". Accounting has one most likely (and almost certain) interpretation in this instance - that it was an office with some element of financial responsibility. Budgeting, payroll, auditing, who knows for sure, but that's the plain English meaning of what was written. "Accounting" can also have other meanings but I would be surprised if it was anything but the most common financial meaning.

All his profile suggests, to be honest, is that he was a mid-level flunky with responsibility for mid-level flunky things. I have no idea how you managed to twist this into something that was clearly never said and certainly never implied.

originally posted by: Navarro
Since Lawson is suggesting that he's the Manager of NASA COMSEC

Now we have this jump from "administrator" to "Manager of NASA COMSEC". The only person who is suggesting this is you. The only way you can even suggest it is by selectively editing the job title that he actually gives. At this point, you are deliberately altering facts in order to promote your agenda.

Based on the sources you have posted, some mid-level flunky got caught with child porn. Everything else you are suggesting relies on at best some really strenuous redefinition and interpretation of what was said, or at worse complete fabrication.

originally posted by: smurfy
So, Lawson it seems was in charge of IT safety...

No, this was something invented purely by the OP and accepted unquestioningly by most other posters.

Lawson himself describes his job as COMSEC Accounting. He was almost certainly a beancounter or supported/managed beancounters.

Just goes to show, if you got something to say, say it. If he let his intentions known that he was going to disclose anything he put a bulls eye on himself.

a reply to: Navarro

Either all that or to preserve integrity they tried to cover up. They couldn't believe it either. The thing is nobody believes it initially, pedophiles hide in plain sight right under everyone's nose, right up until they are caught.

Like NASA is some kind of holy of holy place where nobody is human, committing human mistakes?

He kept NASA secret probably because he was practiced at keeping secrets…

a reply to: schuyler
Seems as the thread has developed the guy wasn't some super hi level secrets keeper, just some admin. accountant. I dunno either.

a reply to: korath

Just goes to show, if you got something to say, say it. If he let his intentions known that he was going to disclose anything he put a bulls eye on himself.

You do understand this man was not going to disclose anything involving NASA...he was caught with child porn on his computer that he admitted to having.

He wasn't a top man at NASA...that's just the OP making up something for hits to his thread.

I doubt a man that has kiddie porn on his computer is going to let his intentions be known...which btw was to download child porn and from his own admission also attempt to make some.

originally posted by: Navarro

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Navarro

"He was fired May 29 from his job at Kennedy Space Center…as well as Science Applications International Corp., after they accused him of several security violations." …

Do we know why he was fired, initially?

(portion redacted)

Edit: Found this rabbit hole…

Article from last year...

That's interesting. I never came across that article, though there are many. Who would've thought that NASA's COMSEC chief would be using NASA equipment to fuel his child pornography urges, let alone that he'd willingly hand those devices over, practically begging for a prison sentence. He couldn't use personal devices to quell his pedophilic disposition? He couldn't refrain from bringing said devices to work? He couldn't wipe the drive the moment he believed himself discovered? He couldn't then remove the drive and/or destroy that drive and replace it with a new drive before handing it over to be scrutinized? He thought encryption and passwords would protect him from an investigation as that?

For being a thirty year expert in information security, he sure doesn't seem very "expert" at it. Let alone does this seem like the action of NASA's leading expert. Besides which, I don't imagine that a man that high in the food chain would ever be investigated in this manner, and if he was, I don't believe that investigation would be allowed to come to charges, let alone any form of publicity. Unless, of course, his superiors and high level colleagues felt it was time to put him out to pasture. In that case, we arrive at motivation for framing him.

Some people believe they will never get caught...would like to here comments from family members

a reply to: Navarro

Who knows? Maybe he saw something, knew too much and was going to talk? I know one thing. The best way for the government to discredit someone and shut them up, is to frame them for child porn. The public would hate them and wouldn't listen to a word they say. Not to mention, prison for the rest of their lives. They use this tactic quite often on the ones that have more seniority, as it takes more to discredit them. As for me, I don't think someone with so much knowledge about how the internet works, and who held such a high position would be so careless. Your average person isn't even this careless. Something doesn't sound right here for sure.

a reply to: chrismarco

I have two girls, and I think this is all fishy. Someone on his level would not have been so careless. I think they are counting on people with children to demonize this guy. I would have to hear from someone other than the government to believe this. The government does nothing but frame people and lie, if they are about to speak out. I bet this guy will "mysteriously" die in person too. This is when you know for a fact it was a smear campaign. They always discredit first, then death comes later.

a reply to: EvillerBob

The truth is, that none of us here know this man, or the power of his position, anymore than anyone else. I get a little tired of all of these "know it all's" that think they have all the answers, just because they're skeptical. Proof of your skepticism, (not just denying outright, and analyzing word play). Here 's some word play for you..It seems YOU left out the word "Manages" accounting. A manager of accounting doesn't actually do the accounting...they manage those who do.

a reply to: Navarro

Nope. Not buying your theory sir. He is a pervert. If someone thought he was gonna snitch about something, he would've got "disappeared". The "he was setup" theory is stretching it pretty far. What would the benefit be to make him look like a pederast?

As far as the warrant is concerned they certainly can do that. If a cop showed up to my door for a noise violation with no warrant but witnessed a minor drinking a beer you can bet your ass he has every right to take action on that.

Thx
-d

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: smurfy
So, Lawson it seems was in charge of IT safety...

No, this was something invented purely by the OP and accepted unquestioningly by most other posters.

Lawson himself describes his job as COMSEC Accounting. He was almost certainly a beancounter or supported/managed beancounters.

They Changed that quick!
now that we are all looking for information...
and we seem to have a lot of posters who scream kill the Pedo!

what was his job again? cleaning the toilets?

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

A manager of accounting doesn't actually do the accounting...they manage those who do.

False. From personal experience.

a reply to: Navarro

Curios to know if you ve thought about contacting the other two D.L.s? Maybe it's a little paranoid of me, but is it possible their situation might be related? If not then at least the possibility was questioned.

originally posted by: berenike
a reply to: Navarro

Sorry if I missed something, but did you try looking in mental institutions?

Yes! I was just about to suggest this exact same idea! Good thinking!
I think there is patient privacy laws, in cases of being in an inpatient mental facility.
I have personal experience from being inpatient at a mental home for a severe bout of depression.
There were respect for patient privacy laws.
Upon check-in, I was given an inpatient #. Whomever I wanted to know that I was being hospitalized in the mental home, if I wanted them to be able to call and ask about me, or call there to talk to me, they would have to know my personal patient #, and the only one who could give it to them was me.
So you just can't call a mental hospital and ask if a specific person is currently being treated there. It's not like when you call a regular health hospital and ask the operator to transfer you to Jane Doe's room, they look up her name, see the room number she's in, and patch you through to the phone in her room.
You have privacy in mental health facilities.

Also BEST thread I've read in a long time, no disrespect to my fellow ATSers, that truly contribute wonderful content, but this story here is good.
I'm certainly not psychic however, I feel. OP is on to something, and I'm quite intrigued myself. I feel it in my gut, something is certainly not quite right. I will be keeping my eyes glued to this.
P.S Anyone else become very careful and very mindful about NOT clicking that one link that tracked all unsuccessful logins?
S&F!