Message posted by JB737 on December 08, 2007 at 12:26:56 PST:
The rancher has the proper security clearance for going in after his cattle. I've heard talk of "cowcams" being used, but I have no idea if it was really used to penetrate the border, or even actually done anywhere near the border...I doubt it. The rancher would find and report it, so as not to lose his own clearance. It was more likely on a cow somewhere totally unrelated, combined with a sense of humor by a California dairy farmer or whatever. And yes, pigeoncams do exist and are even comercially available, but I do not know of anyone who has actually used one in the area. At least one "pigeon guy" seems to have used pigeoncams with great success, but has said nothing about wanting to use it for this purpose. I suspect that if anyone sent a camera inside the border by any means (on an animal, RC vehicle, balloon, kite, model rocket, copter, ornithopter, attached to an unwitting authorized vehicle, or any of the even more creative schemes people regularly dream up...remember the "crawling rock" idea?), they would suffer serious legal consequences. We'll see if cam/bug technology outpaces cam/bug detection technology over the next several years. It's already at the point where, if not for fear of extraordinary sensors landing the perpetrator in Leavenworth, someone probably could have already gotten a cam in and out of there. But there is so little to be gained from photographing the base exterior, relative to the penalties, that it is really doubtful anyone would be crazy enough to try it. Hangar photo...Leavenworth...pretty easy decision. While the base doesn't enforce the federal "no photography without permission of the base commander" law at the harmless border-signs location or from Tikaboo Peak, I'm sure they would enforce it in the case of any camera illegally penetrating the border physically. JB737
In Reply to: Cows and birds posted by Gabriel on December 08, 2007 at 4:59:14 PST:
Replies: