unforum

[yanka]

I wonder if, maybe, we're supposed to be moving the black blocks into the red shape. The black blocks do fit into the holes in the red rather nicely (I mean, heights/widths-wise, not in terms of filling the spaces completely) - I'm just not sure where exactly to move them. And Poke in chat noticed that the black shapes look sort of like the alphabet from another solve.

Anyway, I'm attaching one example of sticking the black blocks behind the red shape.

[bill]

I'm graphics challenged or I would attempt this, but it seems the black should go ABOVE the reddish layer since the red has so many more blocks filled in.

[yanka]

The problem is - I have no idea where to move them. No single position seems to make anything that makes sense. Here is another example of absolutely senseless movement of those blocks around:

[Kender]

Maybe I'm missing something but I cannot get that red shape from the alice.gif at all.
I clearly see the little dots in the bottom right, but no amount of palette editing or other stuff shows anything more than that.
Maybe the PM left that in by mistake and now uploaded a new version where it is fixed?

[SuperJerms]

Slithy and I have been spending the last hour and a half doing the same thing, Kender.

After talking with Leftbrained and Catherwood on IRC, it is my firm believe that alice.gif has been updated to be grayscale with two colors only.

This red blob appears to be a (now corrected) mistake.

It seems only the white pixels matter here.

[catherwood]

razzin'frazzin'packaloovers...

yes, the image was cleaned up, eliminating the "red" pixels, leaving the original white-on-black background, or "black" pixels in the modified zoomed attachments.

[yanka|tage]

It does seem to have been updated, because now, when viewed in notepad, it has all of this alphabet soup stuff in the beginning that wasn't there before. And I never could get that red shape to appear before either - so I can't tell if it's gone now anyway

[growfybruce]

Well, now that alice.gif has been cleaned to leave only the white pixels, my binary theory just leaves us with a list of numbers between 00h and 1Fh.

It could be the result of XORing plaintext with a key string...

For the record:

[johnny5]

Here's what I got:
using 5-bit

[growfybruce]

I just noticed - of the five pixels in each row, the middle three are always blank except in every third row.

In fact, if you divide the rows into groups of three - the first row of each group will never have anything but the leftmost pixel lit.

[SuperJerms]

Pixel Glyphs.

5x2 = ABCCDEFGHI = rabbithole

5x3 = ABCBBDBEFGHIGJK

Just let subcracker run overnight on the second. Nothing useful. Best match was DEFEELECTROGRAM.


Also noticed last night that the decimal sums of the five-string binary sums equal 15 for line fifteen and 30 for line thirty.

[catherwood]

[Dr. Oid]

I think that these things may be important:

1865
ROT values, alice.gif dimensions are 1865x1865, and the Alice in wonderland was first published in 1865 (and http://www.soogees.com/1865.htm )

white pixels in the alice.gif
I've saved the first alice.gif few days ago.
It has the same 5x3 symbols but in reverse order.

Here's the comparison of the three images and the symbols cut from the third image:

[growfybruce]

Good spot! So we are supposed to be looking at them in 3-row blocks then?

[johnny5]

At the risk of a smelly fish to the cranial region.

I notice the window title is ".-"

Can we derive any kind of morse pattern out of this thing?

Taking lit as - and unlit as . :