Proving "comms" is always going to be an interesting thing.

Codes and comms have been used for thousands of years because there are some things you don't talk about openly. In mafia movies, the mob bosses might sit at an Italian restaurants discussing the "menu" and on the surface it just looks like a conversations about pasta, but really they're talking about a hit.

In old times when you had to send messages it would be dumb to send, "Let's kill the king on July 4th". If that message is intercepted you and your allies will hang for treason.

So you use comms instead. The king might get represented by cat (coz his coat of arms is a lion) and you instead discuss how Snowball needs to be "put down". If the letter is intercepted you just act like the other party is crazy for saying the message was about anything other than a cat.

They very nature of comms is to make them hard to 100% prove. The more inane the topic, the harder it is to prove. You could represent the target with teddy bear that will be replaced on this date. No one will be able to "prove" you were talking about regicide.

If comms were obvious they wouldn't be useful. That's why it takes open minded people to be able to recognize and learn them. Most sheep don't see the comm and symbolism staring in their face. If you point it out to sheep they'll just gape at you and giggle saying, "You're saying they're post about pizza and ranch saw was about pedophelia snicker oooookkkaaaay."

Comms reading requires imaginations. You have to see the connections they were using to make the comms. Some of those connections might just be where the teddy bear came from and you realize that's also where the "king" came from. That's how they made the comm.

Dog comms or any comms will never be "proven" unless you can get the people using the comm to admit to what they're really talking about (which will never happen).

Comms are a reality. Every government uses them. Every secret society does. Every intelligence agency does. If you can accept that comms are necessary and needed, the next step is learning to recognize them which is not always easy.

Dog comms are real, but again we'll never have be able to prove they were a comm without a confession by those who made the comm.

Hell if I know. You saw were I wrote that I eat crayons right?

Yes, if you look on the blog decoding symbolism you will find a good article

Symbolism Communication https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/

Edit: what supra said