Top NASA Official Jailed Under Suspicious Circumstances

originally posted by: Navarro
The PDF containing Lawson's plea deal included a statement which might relate this:

Following the execution of the search warrant at LAWSON's residence, LAWSON agreed to speak voluntarily with agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the NASA Office of Inspector General. During the interviews that followed...

Prior to his arrest, we see them searching his home, and a reference to multiple interviews being conducted still prior. It's anyone's guess at how many interviews were conducted, or over how long of a period of time. Could be that it took them a while to convince Lawson to play ball. There's no reason to believe it couldn't have taken five days. Yet there's no reason to believe that this period did last five days. If there was something happening during those days you're interested in, this is what the government said about them. What do you think?

I think that's just a minor detail. In my opinion, the most important part of this story, which I've already posted but seems to have gone unnoticed, is this: COMSEC Accounting, Reporting and Distribution System is a highly specialized secure asset management system, and we're talking about a man who was the sysadm for that system at NASA. The managed assets can be either physical or digital, but let's just focus on the digital documents in there for now. What kind of electronic classified documents would NASA have in its possession, I wonder? Isn't NASA frequently the subject of conspiracy theories in which it negates access to secret information to the general public? If indeed COMSEC was the system used to manage those assets, Mr. Lawson as a sysadm had access to all of it. All electronic documents, reports, assessments, videos, images, everything. Now the news clearly state that he was fired for "security violations" and then, after that a search was conducted on his computers and digital storage and child porn was found. So what exactly did he get his hands on, or passed along to someone else that got him fired and possibly framed with child porn?

a reply to: Navarro

It's not about him. It's about who brought him in to the organization and who raised him up inside the organization into a position where he could possibly leak something useful to our enemies. If he ever gets caught he has a built-in discrediting campaign. At this point most readers are trapped in a salacious thought bubble instead of a search for the real enemy in a mode of self-preservation.

This is how it works. This is why you always see these odd people in powerful positions. They are picked for their weakness. Of course this type of strategy requires plenty of moles inside the organization in the first place. They get their by utilizing their own powers of deception. The enemy is within the Republic and needs to be rooted out. 24-hour news and instant internet communication has really opened a lot of eyes and minds to this issue.

a reply to: Navarro

You've written many posts in this thread, and nearly every one of them was Ad Hominem.

Asking you to explain your interest in this case is not an ad hom attack, although all of your replies to me have been. Why don't you want to come clean as to why you are attempting to assassinate the character of people you (presumably) don't know? Given that at one point you actually posted contact information to one of the people you are bent on persecuting, which might have encouraged actual personal harassment, this is not an idle question. You began by telling a deliberate lie about Lawson, and have been weaving fantasies that try to inflate his importance through association, and are now dragging other names through the mud. This seems like an awful lot of effort for someone with no personal agenda. Did you know Lawson? Are you a disgruntled former employee yourself? The "fishiest" thing on this thread is the thread itself.

Remember, you are not talking about a public figure who has given up a certain amount of privacy in exchange for celebrity or high office, you are talking about a broken 70 year old man.

Where is your sense of decency?

a reply to: Crowdpsychology

Please explain what you are getting at, and why we should care.

a reply to: Deny777

Reporting and Distribution System is a highly specialized secure asset management system, and we're talking about a man who was the sysadm for that system at NASA.

If he was the sysadmin for all of NASA, what was he doing at KSC? Wouldn't the chief administrator be in Washington?

originally posted by: DJW001
you are talking about a broken 70 year old man.

Where is your sense of decency?

Suddenly the pedophile becomes the victim..?

originally posted by: SargonThrall

originally posted by: DJW001
you are talking about a broken 70 year old man.

Where is your sense of decency?

Suddenly the pedophile becomes the victim..?

Where is it established that he was a pedophile? Out of a collection of thousands of pornographic images, only two involved under age individuals. With a collection that large, it is possible that he was even unaware that those particular images were in his possession! Have you ever downloaded a zip file and never gotten around to fully examining its contents?

It is the lynch mob mentality that your post demonstrates that I find so disturbing. It has been conclusively shown that almost all the claims made in the OP are not true, and yet this thread churns on, heedless of consequences. In a court of law, people are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Apparently, on ATS everyone is assumed to be guilty, even if it is proved they are innocent.

originally posted by: DJW001
Where is it established that he was a pedophile? Out of a collection of thousands of pornographic images, only two involved under age individuals. With a collection that large, it is possible that he was even unaware that those particular images were in his possession! Have you ever downloaded a zip file and never gotten around to fully examining its contents?

I think you're mixing up the two cases discussed. You've also been misled by the rather variable concept of "known facts" shown in the thread so far.

The old guy (Lawson) had apparently admitted in interview to downloading hundreds of images of child pornography, though investigators reported that "thousands" of images were found. He pleaded guilty in August 2015 and is still awaiting sentencing - this is currently on hold while they seek a psychological evaluation. According to reports he wasn't just downloading images, he was using hidden cameras to take photos of young boys. It's not clear whether they were "pornographic" photos or just photos that he didn't have permission to take.

According to some posters in this thread it's highly suspicious that a 70-year-old man, having been told that he faces up to 20 years in prison for child porn, starts to feel suicidal. Logic dictates that Lawson was CLEARLY about to leak a classified home video of little green men attending Kennedy's birthday party. Or something. Because that's the only thing that makes more sense than "he genuinely feels suicidal and/or doesn't want to end up in prison for 20 years so is trying to get onto a psych ward".

The "just two accidental downloads" guy was a lawyer who actually pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography. Quite a few years ago, in fact. He's done his prison time and would have completed his probation by now if he hadn't kept violating the terms and getting it extended. He's only disputing the case now because they've decided to use the conviction as a reason to disbar him instead of the temporary suspension originally offered.

According to some posters in this thread, it's a travesty of justice that a court found him guilty of an offence with no evidence of intent. Apparently it's irrelevant that he was the one who told the court that he was guilty. I suppose his 20+ years of experience as a lawyer meant he wasn't able to fully comprehend what he was saying or doing.

So, whether or not you believe their side of the story, both of them have actually been convicted of their respective offences.

I wouldn't worry too much about accuracy though. Nobody else does.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: SargonThrall

originally posted by: DJW001
you are talking about a broken 70 year old man.

Where is your sense of decency?

Suddenly the pedophile becomes the victim..?

Where is it established that he was a pedophile? Out of a collection of thousands of pornographic images, only two involved under age individuals. With a collection that large, it is possible that he was even unaware that those particular images were in his possession! Have you ever downloaded a zip file and never gotten around to fully examining its contents?

It is the lynch mob mentality that your post demonstrates that I find so disturbing. It has been conclusively shown that almost all the claims made in the OP are not true, and yet this thread churns on, heedless of consequences. In a court of law, people are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Apparently, on ATS everyone is assumed to be guilty, even if it is proved they are innocent.

Seriously, dude? You totally just confused two entirely separate incidents. I really don't know what your motives are for contributing in this thread, but not once have I gotten the impression the thread was an attempt to assassinate Lawson's character or rub his nose it or anything of the sort in an attempt to grind some axe. You, on the other hand, have left me wondering.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Seriously, dude? You totally just confused two entirely separate incidents.

I was not the author of the confusion.

a reply to: EvillerBob

I wouldn't worry too much about accuracy though. Nobody else does.

Exactly my point.

a reply to: DJW001

Yes you were. It's in the post above. Those aren't you word? Yes, they are. You're the author of the confusion. Evillerbob pointed out as much. Try again.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Deny777

Reporting and Distribution System is a highly specialized secure asset management system, and we're talking about a man who was the sysadm for that system at NASA.

If he was the sysadmin for all of NASA, what was he doing at KSC? Wouldn't the chief administrator be in Washington?

He was sysadm for a specific system, are you familiar with the meaning of the term "sysadm"? I don't mean to patronize, but if you want to argue, get yot facts straight first and be sure you understand them. Contractors are often hired by companies like NASA for many reasons, costs and HR outsourcing being among the most common of them. That does not mean their position is as irrelevant as some in this thread try to suggest, but it doesn't mean this guy is a sysadm for everything related to computers at NASA either.

a reply to: Navarro

Regardless of the truth behind this news, Lawson made it his life's work to deprive the world of knowledge which is humanity's right to know. Not only that, but he has deprived me personally from the information which I seek. There are people who've spent their lives in pursuit of the information which he has, and he spent his life obstructing their pursuits.

www.abovetopsecret.com... [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Do you still stand by this statement? Lawson was never NASA's "top censor," he was just some guy from IT. Are you proud of lying about someone who has already managed to humiliate himself? What is the intent of this thread?

a reply to: DJW001
I see you missed my point. You have been denying a conspiracy this whole thread, which implies that the FBI's explanation is correct, over the original author's theory.

This being your premise, you have defended a pedophile. I have no idea where you got "only two" images from, so you clearly didnt read any of the articles. Lawson admitted to having 6-800.

One of two things is true: he is a pedophile, or he is not. If he is, you defended a despicable human being for no other purpose than to disparage the thread author. If he is not a pedophile, then the FBI and NASA lied to cover up something.

a reply to: SargonThrall

What conspiracy would he be missing?

The one the op made up?

You seem to be missing the truth that the op is...the man wasn't diddly at NASA and that was established early on in this thread.

But truth doesn't seem to be the agenda here, but making false headlines and your own story seems to be.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: DJW001

Yes you were. It's in the post above. Those aren't you word? Yes, they are. You're the author of the confusion. Evillerbob pointed out as much. Try again.

Actually no, I was blaming everyone else. The confusion is understandable because 87% of this thread is made up stuff pulled from the hyperactive imagination of OP and some other posters.

a reply to: Navarro

There's over a thousand names on that monument, they didn't make one specifically for Cecil, how disingenuous of you.

I agree, Larry Davis sounds like he's in the know...shame it's not about him isn't it?

You're still a liar though, as I pointed out in my first post here...