Top NASA Official Jailed Under Suspicious Circumstances

The confusion comes from a misapplication of the word "administrator" as meaning "top level" which many times is the case, for example GSA Administrator is the top official at GSA. However, it the IT realm, it simply means he's someone with access to view, alter, etc. other people's computers, communications devices, etc.

Most of the IT labor force of the government is contractors, and many of them are administrators to that extent. If I need to have something updated in my computer, it won't let me because I am not a system administrator. That doesn't mean that only a top official can do what I need done, it simply means I need someone from IT to do it for me.

This guy was an IT contractor. Not a top NASA official or even an actual government employee. He was not in any management role as a contractor.

I hope this helps clear up the confusion.

a reply to: usernameconspiracy

I hope this helps clear up the confusion.

One would think.

Nope. This entire thread is a very good example of ATS taking something out of context, misunderstanding what is being said, and making a mountain out of a molehill.

THIS is what the OP started with:

Donald Lawson was NASA's Communication Security Administrator (COMSEC Admin) for the past thirty years. Since the Reagan Administration, Lawson has been the man in charge of controlling information coming out've NASA. Whatever the government deemed too sensitive for public dissemination, Lawson was tasked with overseeing the effort to keep those NASA secrets a secret. The policy of "Never A Straight Answer" was the brainchild of this man. In all history, never has someone fallen from so high in the space secrecy apparatus.

And it's complete baloney. It's utter nonsense.

Donald Lawson was NOT "in charge of controlling information coming out of NASA."
Donald Lawson was NOT "tasked with overseeing the effort to keep those NASA secrets a secret."
The policy of "Never a Straight Answer" was NOT the "brainchild of this man."
Donald Lawson has NOT "fallen from so high in the space agency apparatus."

NONE of this is true. It's complete fiction. NOWHERE in any of the available information are these conclusions warranted. They are completely made up.

Donald Lawson was at best a mid-level functionary working for a contractor in the field of IT.

That's it. That's all he did.

Then OP takes these complete untruths and weaves a conspiracy theory around it. It sounds really good, but the fact is the premise is fatally flawed from the get go. Lawson is not in any sense a stifled whistle blower.

He's just a pedophile.

This is why ATS is not credible. This is not "research" that everyone is fawning over. It's fanciful fiction. I am extremely disappointed that ATS has been taken in by this so-called "research." This is what you call "denying ignorance"????

That's laughable. It's promoting it.

Delete

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Sadly, you are correct. For some odd reason people do really stupid things with computers...even if they use and work with them all day long.

a reply to: schuyler

I am extremely disappointed that ATS has been taken in by this so-called "research." This is what you call "denying ignorance"????

Well some would rather have a conspiracy then they would the actual truth.

Sad thing is sometimes it doesn't work...denying ignorance that is.

I look at it this way...you can give them the truth, but it's up to them how they use it.

And in this case the OP just threw it out the window.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
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.

The problem is... we do have some idea. He told us himself. Someone even posted the quotes from his online profile giving his job title and a list of some of his responsibilities.

Sometimes outright denial is enough. I deny, outright, that the man ever claimed to be the Manager of COMSEC. I deny it on the basis that he never said it. It's a bit hard to prove that something wasn't said, other than by pointing to his already posted words and saying - there, look, he never said it! That's not me being skeptical. That's me reading what was written and comprehending it. If the guy ever made the claim elsewhere then fantastic, find it and post it. I'm really not exactly sure what you expect from me?

It's the same thing with the "managing" point that you raise. What can I do except deny it? I mean, I could quote the multiple occasions in my posts where I refer to him managing (in fact I think I said "supporting and/or managing") but it all appears on the previous page already. It seems a bit silly to quote myself from just a few posts ago.

99% of "skeptics" aren't skeptics. They just don't understand why they should ignore the plain meaning of the source and take enormous leaps of mental gymnastics predicated on substantially changing the source text to fit whatever world view is being proposed. It's not clever, it doesn't show some greater understanding of the way the world works, it's just... well, unhinged.

originally posted by: schuyler

This is why ATS is not credible. This is not "research" that everyone is fawning over. It's fanciful fiction. I am extremely disappointed that ATS has been taken in by this so-called "research." This is what you call "denying ignorance"????

On the one hand, the premise of the thread does demonstrate ATS at its absolute worst. However, you'll notice that many people have already stepped in to address these points. That's the strength of ATS, the ability to discuss these matters with rigour and pointing out the absurdities.

I found it odd from the get go that the top COMSEC man at NASA would have a Linked in profile. That's be like the head of the NSA, CIA ad naseum, posting their resume. Just didn't make sense.

Smear campaign. Tried to disclose something. Kiddie porn allegations are the oldest trick in the book. You can consider anything this man says from this point forward to be completely disregarded.

a reply to: EvillerBob

And the posts after yours is the other problem. People not reading the whole thread.

Here's my take on this story:

First, his linkedin profile is very weird. How does one become a NASA contractor without any previous experience? Was his job at NASA so good that he felt he didn't need fill it out? Also, no endorsements whatosoever? It would seem to me that NASA should be the dream job for anyone working in IT, and yet this guy has one of the most pitiful profiles I've ever seen, and that's including lots and lots of recent graduates (I should know, I read through dozens of them before hiring developers). Now a 70 years old specialist with over 30 years of experience would never, ever have a resume like this, trust me.

So this linkedin profile, which is actually mentioned in one of the news stories I've seen, is definitely made up. It's completely worhtless in my opinion.

According to the Orlando Sentinel:

The Brevard County man was fired last month from his job at Kennedy Space Center, as well as from a federal information technology contractor, Science Applications International Corp, after allegations of "multiple security violations," court records state.

But when investigators searched Lawson's devices for NASA-related information, they found videos and photos of naked boys.

That seems a bit too convenient to me, and I can see why child porn is said to have become such a favorite for discrediting whistle blowers: besides revolting people, it's something that never needs to be proven publicly.

Now here's something else that seems a bit odd to me, the same Orlando Sentinel article reads:

A 70-year-old former NASA employee facing child pornography charges will remain in the Seminole County Jail after he did not ask for bail at a hearing in federal court on Tuesday.

That's 5 days after being arrested, 5 days too much if you ask me.

Now on to his role: COMSEC Accounting, Reporting and Distribution (CARDS) has nothing to do with accounting. I'm no expert either, but from what I've read it's a highly specialized secure asset management system for both physical and digital assets that seems to be found mainly in military organizations. Interesting, huh? Here's a manufacturer page for further reading:
www.ultra-prologic.com...

Now IF he was just fired for "multiple security violations", I'd just think he'd screwed up and got caught - these things do happen. But to think a scurity specialist still kept child porn in his work computer after being caught for security violations seems like a bit of a stretch to me, as incompetent and stupid as he might be - and remember, he managed to keep his job at NASA for over 30 years.

So in short, I think this guy knew something inconvenient for the agency and was promptly silenced, and I very much doubt that he's still alive.

originally posted by: SargonThrall
Well colour me intrigued.

From link

So for a timeline:
May 29 fired for security violations
? ? ? federal agents get a search warrant to look for NASA related material
June 2 admitted to psychiatric facility
June ? ? single image claimed to be found on drive
June ? ? at facility, gain his passwords
June ? ? find further videos


So it seems they did an unrelated search and either found compromising material, or they fabricated it, because what was on there was sensitive.
I find it somewhat hard to believe that a government technology-based agency wouldnt monitor their contractors and know this about him. Perhaps they did yet did not care, or perhaps it is fabricated. You should try emailing the authors of the article, they listed their addresses.

I called Wuesthoff Medical Center in Rockledge. The staff member who answered the phone said she saw no record of a Donald E Lawson ever being admitted. Patient confidentiality does come into play when it comes to such things. It could be that his record has been obstructed from her view, or that she saw a note indicating that his status can't be disclosed. That may be due to general confidentiality for all patients, or it could be that a specific party may have requested that his presence not be disclosed, potentially Lawson himself. Before I could ask any more questions, the staff member informed me that she was transferring me to their hospice facility. Maybe she had no information and so she thought the person she was tranfering me to might. Maybe she saw something indicating that he is or was a hospice patient there. Whichever the case may be, I didn't have the opportunity to ask.

Hospice was quick to inform me that they can't discuss patients. I provided his name and date of admitance anyhow, and her response was that even had he been admitted at that time, he wouldn't be there now. She said, somewhat strangely, "this is a hospice facility. This is where people come to die." Very blunt language typical of hospital workers. I explained that I believe Lawson not to be deceased, and asked which long-term facility patients tend to be transferred to from there. She was hesitant to answer, but eventually responded that there are many such facilities throughout the county. In Lawson's case, I think the scope of the search would be somewhat wider than the county. So no help there.

I might call back at a later time and approach the situation differently. Instead of inquiring as to whether or not he's still at their short-term facility, I might instead state that I'm simply trying to contact a patient there. Maybe I'll get a different response. Maybe they'll tell me he was transferred. Maybe they'll state where to. For anyone interested, the phone number there is 321-636-2211.

That's a great find though SargonThrall. You've found out where he was then, I've just gotta figure out where he went next. For anyone thinking that my being transferred to the hospice facility could indicate that he's dead, I don't believe that to be the case. I expect that the BOP would have listed him as "deceased" rather than "not in BOP custody" if that was the situation. Either that or they would've taken down his information all-together. At least, I assume. I've also searched for his obituary listing, including via the website Topix Obituaries, but he's not there. As far as contacting the journalists who wrote the article goes, I've sent them both a request for information, but I'm not hopeful.

originally posted by: Nyiah
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

Don't be absurd. You're suggesting that supporting this subject is supporting molestation. You specifically likened it to "condoning molestation." That's not unlike the notorious claims that opposition to Obama is an act born of racism. There is no more important commodity on this earth than information. I'll compare your position the the Catholic Church when book burnings were a thing.

I don't care who Lawson is, nor do I necessarily care what he did. I care about the truth. It's possible that Lawson was framed, and even if he did do these things he's accused of, it's possible that light was only made of it for a counter-intelligence purpose. Lawson was in fact in a position to know things, even if he wasn't the "top official" I initially thought him to be. I was interested in the subject before I arrived at the position of believing he was a prominent figure. Everyone here understands that the mentions of child pornography, suicide and mental institutionalization is sufficient to raise eyebrows. Among the conspiracy community, these are accepted as red flags indicating possible COINTEL involvement. When the topic is a man who was in the position to be in the know, those red flags are to be taken seriously.

Lawson certainly was in a position to know things which you and I do not. It would surprise me if after thirty years the man was still working at seventy years old as a COMSEC technician rather than as the manager as he claimed. It would surprise me if after thirty years he never had the opportunity to gain access to classified information. It would surprise me if he didn't regularly have that opportunity. It would surprise me if the function of his job didn't naturally involve this as an unavoidable circumstance. It would surprise me if after thirty years, he was never unofficially spoken to about classified things by colleagues within NASA and beyond.

I could go on, but I find it clearly evident that he knew something. The question isn't whether or not we should risk being associated with someone who's been accused of possessing child pornography. I can think of no more ridiculous argument. The question is, is there more to the story? More directly: was this situation brought on by motivations beyond the simple notion of justice? The answer to those questions haven't been established. I think any reasonable person would like to know those answers, and I think they'd like to know not only what became of this situation, but also what Lawson has to say about it. In fact, I think they'd like to know what Lawson has to say generally, specifically regarding what he might know which he shouldn't.

No one is "condoning molestation" or "dismissing victims." We're in pursuit of the truth. A subject which you very much seem disinterested in.

originally posted by: schuyler
Nope. This entire thread is a very good example of ATS taking something out of context, misunderstanding what is being said, and making a mountain out of a molehill.

THIS is what the OP started with:

Donald Lawson was NASA's Communication Security Administrator (COMSEC Admin) for the past thirty years. Since the Reagan Administration, Lawson has been the man in charge of controlling information coming out've NASA. Whatever the government deemed too sensitive for public dissemination, Lawson was tasked with overseeing the effort to keep those NASA secrets a secret. The policy of "Never A Straight Answer" was the brainchild of this man. In all history, never has someone fallen from so high in the space secrecy apparatus.

And it's complete baloney. It's utter nonsense.

Donald Lawson was NOT "in charge of controlling information coming out of NASA."
Donald Lawson was NOT "tasked with overseeing the effort to keep those NASA secrets a secret."
The policy of "Never a Straight Answer" was NOT the "brainchild of this man."
Donald Lawson has NOT "fallen from so high in the space agency apparatus."

NONE of this is true. It's complete fiction. NOWHERE in any of the available information are these conclusions warranted. They are completely made up.

Donald Lawson was at best a mid-level functionary working for a contractor in the field of IT.

That's it. That's all he did.

Then OP takes these complete untruths and weaves a conspiracy theory around it. It sounds really good, but the fact is the premise is fatally flawed from the get go. Lawson is not in any sense a stifled whistle blower.

He's just a pedophile.

This is why ATS is not credible. This is not "research" that everyone is fawning over. It's fanciful fiction. I am extremely disappointed that ATS has been taken in by this so-called "research." This is what you call "denying ignorance"????

That's laughable. It's promoting it.

Well the fact that you and others are pointing out key elements of this story to shed some light on its validity or lack thereof is proof in and of itself that ATS has some merit, no?

Besides, when it comes to the type of info the OP is referring to, paradigm changing info, we already know that process is a very slow and tedious one for the sake of continuity of civilization .

To the OP...

Dont get me wrong, when it comes to disclosure of certain information im pretty much there with ya. It just took me a bit to realize that we need to baby step our way into it.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
The confusion comes from a misapplication of the word "administrator" as meaning "top level" which many times is the case, for example GSA Administrator is the top official at GSA. However, it the IT realm, it simply means he's someone with access to view, alter, etc. other people's computers, communications devices, etc.

Most of the IT labor force of the government is contractors, and many of them are administrators to that extent. If I need to have something updated in my computer, it won't let me because I am not a system administrator. That doesn't mean that only a top official can do what I need done, it simply means I need someone from IT to do it for me.

This guy was an IT contractor. Not a top NASA official or even an actual government employee. He was not in any management role as a contractor.

I hope this helps clear up the confusion.

I considered that in retrospect nearly immediately after writing the original post. In that very brief moment of contemplation, I thought the matter to be a side-note anyhow. It's sexier when the guy is a "top official," but the significance of the topic isn't necessarily reduced by him not. Among other things, I studied being a Network Administrator in college for a time. In that moment of reflection I very well understood that we may be looking at a glorified IT boss, granted who's work specialized in COMSEC for an agency significant to the conspiracy community. So, gloried IT in a similar sense that NSA are glorified IT.

I didn't think it immediately important whether or not he worked from a office suit with a view, or whether he sat in front of a computer in the basement. The fact of the matter was that I found the issue suspicious before I saw his Linkedin profile, and either way he was in the position to know things which could have covertly been the actual catalyst for the situation we observe. For that reason I didn't revisit the issue further, because I was more interested in continuing my investigation based on the relevant facts in order to hopefully learn something of significant value. I couldn't be bothered to be caught up in the details of practical irrelevance. There was an investigation to be conducted, and other details took priority.

originally posted by: megabogie
I found it odd from the get go that the top COMSEC man at NASA would have a Linked in profile. That's be like the head of the NSA, CIA ad naseum, posting their resume. Just didn't make sense.

Yes one might expect the "top COMSEC man" to more concerned with OPSEC. However, there's many examples of such things. It seems that those who aren't in the spotlight can sometimes be more easily found than you'd think. Nobody was paying any attention to Lawson, and it's not like he was talking about anything anyhow. He just let the internet know he exists. Meanwhile, a stroll over to Twitter could bring you into contact with the thoughts of members of the intelligence circle. There's lots of analysts and cryptographers there, among other things. If you think about it, is it so shocking that boss computer nerds are talking on the internet? Computing is their life, as it was for Lawson.

As I said though, it was just a resume. In my opinion, the fact of his profile is best indicative of a career-minded professional. Keeping his options open, or proudly announcing his position.

originally posted by: smurfy
The video news report makes it seem like the initial investigation was about child pornography viewing. However, Unless I am mistaken, this wasn't just about one guy, there were over a dozen employees involved, see here,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are plenty of links at the youtube video site, however the Florida Times story has been trashed.

Sadly, somebody's gotta buy the child porn to plant on the smear target computers.
Might not have been for this guy, but it might as well have been NASA.

originally posted by: Deny777
Here's my take on this story:

First, his linkedin profile is very weird. How does one become a NASA contractor without any previous experience? Was his job at NASA so good that he felt he didn't need fill it out? Also, no endorsements whatosoever? It would seem to me that NASA should be the dream job for anyone working in IT, and yet this guy has one of the most pitiful profiles I've ever seen, and that's including lots and lots of recent graduates (I should know, I read through dozens of them before hiring developers). Now a 70 years old specialist with over 30 years of experience would never, ever have a resume like this, trust me.

So this linkedin profile, which is actually mentioned in one of the news stories I've seen, is definitely made up. It's completely worhtless in my opinion.

According to the Orlando Sentinel:

The Brevard County man was fired last month from his job at Kennedy Space Center, as well as from a federal information technology contractor, Science Applications International Corp, after allegations of "multiple security violations," court records state.

But when investigators searched Lawson's devices for NASA-related information, they found videos and photos of naked boys.

That seems a bit too convenient to me, and I can see why child porn is said to have become such a favorite for discrediting whistle blowers: besides revolting people, it's something that never needs to be proven publicly.

Now here's something else that seems a bit odd to me, the same Orlando Sentinel article reads:

A 70-year-old former NASA employee facing child pornography charges will remain in the Seminole County Jail after he did not ask for bail at a hearing in federal court on Tuesday.

That's 5 days after being arrested, 5 days too much if you ask me.

Now on to his role: COMSEC Accounting, Reporting and Distribution (CARDS) has nothing to do with accounting. I'm no expert either, but from what I've read it's a highly specialized secure asset management system for both physical and digital assets that seems to be found mainly in military organizations. Interesting, huh? Here's a manufacturer page for further reading:
www.ultra-prologic.com...

Now IF he was just fired for "multiple security violations", I'd just think he'd screwed up and got caught - these things do happen. But to think a scurity specialist still kept child porn in his work computer after being caught for security violations seems like a bit of a stretch to me, as incompetent and stupid as he might be - and remember, he managed to keep his job at NASA for over 30 years.

So in short, I think this guy knew something inconvenient for the agency and was promptly silenced, and I very much doubt that he's still alive.

I noticed some discussion in the thread about the "accounting" issue, but I haven't yet addressed it because I felt it was a distraction coming from individuals who weren't taking the matter seriously, nor were they contributing anything useful. The idea that he was a "COMSEC accountant" is doesn't exactly make a whole lot of sense. I think it's pretty clear that the intended idea behind the phrase is a reference to the mechanism which accounts for NASA's COMSEC. It could've been more clearly identified as "COMSEC division," but it's been many years since we've had policemen or garbagemen. Everyone's a Public Safety Officer or a Sanitation Engineer these days.

You speak of a five days issue, but I'm not clear on what you're specifically referring to. Five days between which two events? Investigation and arrest? Charge and arrest? Arrest and article? Orlando Sentinel published multiple articles on the subject. To which would you be referring?

Why not just dispose of him the old fashioned way , like cut his break lines or throw him out the window like they did to James Forrestal ?