Translate

Friday, 15 May 2015

Let's go round again........



Evening all.

Well, the mad old bat is clinging on to the loon conspiracy like a pensioner clinging to her purse in the January sales, despite a number of posters trying to point her in the right direction. More fool her.
So this week's lunatic offering is pretty much the same as last week's lunatic offering. Brace yourselves, this isn't going to be pretty


Balance: Unbalanced

Textusa had been looking forward to her first weightwatcher's meeting for ages 


1. Introduction

In our “Irrefutable Proof” post we showed you how the listings in the Ocean Club’s Booking sheets had been doctored. They were filled with EHE – Evident Human Errors.
Oh for fuck's sake, not another of these twattish acronyms 

In what were supposed to be print outs from a database and therefore without the EHE shown.

Then we said that we had been pointed in the right direction by comments made both by Insane and Johanna.
You mean when we both told you, four years ago, that you were talking out of your arse? 

In one of those comments Johanna said the following:

“Just one thing. As demonstrated on the example of the Hynds: the booking sheets were always kept in a weekly record. If customers stayed for 2 weeks then there would be 2 sheets given to the Tapas restaurant.

The Hynds for example stayed 2 weeks. The first booking sheet given to the Tapas restaurant gives their stay from 28/04 until 05/05 and the second booking sheet was then given to the restaurant the following week listing the Hynds as staying from 05/05 until 12/05.”

The sheets were given, apparently, on a daily basis to the Tapas Bar.

Searching the PJ Files, no such procedure is referred so we can’t ascertain the reasons for its existence. It is a fact that 4 of the 6 sets that appear on the files do have a handwritten header of “Tapas” just above the computer header “Listagem de hóspedes” (Guest list):
Why would the PJ files contain a guide to procedures at the Ocean club? 

Does the Ocean Club manual contain a guide to the correct way to book in and charge a prisoner? No?
Then don't be so fucking ridiculous. 



2. Keeping the tab

We published, untouched and exceptionally uncensored, Insane’s explanation as to why the computer totals don’t tally up with what the listings refer to in terms of number of apartments by their designations as we showed in our “Definitive Proof” post.
No, you published an extract. For the full version, see this site. 

An excerpt of that explanation, now censored:

“So what you SHOULD have asked yourself is, ''what were these documents for?''

They were for the Tapas restaurant.

So why did they need a list? I gave you a clue yesterday.

Because the Tapas restaurant was included as a dining option for Mark Warner guests on their package. This was not the case for other companies. Did they need to know occupancy rates? No. Would they give a (censored) about how an apartment was designated? No.

The PJ took these reports along with the table bookings. They did not say ''Kindly supply us with a list of all your guests, along with occupancy rates, individual spend and the kind of detail which would bring joy to the life of an auditor'' They just took what was there.”

Insane corroborates that the lists are for the Tapas bar. 
The big fucking clue was that they had ''Tapas'' written at the top, and they were filed, by the police, with the tapas table booking sheets. 

But although he does pose the question “so why did they need a list?” he offers no explanation. 
It's in the above paragraph,Dingbat. The one beginning with the word ''Because'' 

We fail to see why a restaurant being included as a dining option for a certain tour operator has anything to do with being supplied a daily list with all the information about all the guests including those of other tour operators.
Well, that's your look out, isn't it? Just because you fail to see something, it doesn't mean it's not there. Like a big round table, for example 

If, and we repeat if, the dining option for Mark Warner was the reason, shouldn’t the list contain only the information pertaining to the Mark Warner guests? But we will get to that later in the post.
Why? 

Insane must have forgotten that he didn’t need to give any explanation as he had already done so. In his reaction to our “Irrefutable Proof” he says:

“Hotels and other holiday accommodation have these lists for several reasons. They will use them when people attend for meals to cross them off and check whether the meal is part of an inclusive package. Textusa has carefully deleted the last column which is labelled ''Saldo''

Do you know what ''Saldo'' means?

It means ''Balance''. It's a running total of charges accumulated by the guest which they have charged to their account.

These reports are run off on a daily basis, usually after the bar has shut and all the tabs have been rung in. It's not a difficult concept.

The records are frequently accessed. Keying errors and typos mean mistakes will sometimes appear.

And that, basically, is that.”
No, but you ignored that, didn't you? 

So it’s all about the tabs. Note that at this stage for Insane the discrepancies were due to “keying errors and typos”. Nothing about OCR. That passion would only appear later, it seems.
Passion? That was someone else's idea, fuckwit. I don't think it makes any bloody difference. The list contains errors. Get a life.  

We do find it strange that in no booking sheet is there anything that resembles any sort of checking done by the Tapas staff about Mark Warner guests.
Were you in charge of the Tapas?  


Plus, not all Mark Warner guests were entitled to have dinner at Tapas, only the abnegated ones willing to stand in a queue early in the morning plus the favoured by unexplained nepotism. All others had to eat at the Millenium or if they were willing to pay and forfeit what the package offered, eat somewhere else.
And your point is? 


Shouldn’t there be a check mark of some sort next to the names of the privileged? There aren’t any such marking.
And your point is? 

Another blogger concurs with Insane on the keeping the tab being the reason why Tapas received daily a list of all clients at the resort and their respective details:

“The issue starts with the PJ files. The link above describes the documents as check-in lists used by the Tapas restaurant. This is wrong. The prints are running tabs of what customers owe to the Tapas area, presumably so this can be paid at check-out.”

This blogger is more generic, as he says it’s about what customers, and not only the Mark Warner guest, owed to the Tapas area, not only restaurant.
Good to know that at least one other reader is not a complete retard. 

So these lists, apparently, are all about the money.


3. Booking sheets

The last column of booking sheets (“Saldo”) clearly refers to expenses, to be more specific, any unsettled guest bills to the OC.

Anyone familiar with hotels can tell you these refer to anything, from unsettled room bills – these are paid on checkout if a direct booking – to dinners and drinks in the restaurants (Millennium, Tapas, and Adult pools) or room service and mini bar, extras like microwaves, travel cots, baby pushchairs/strollers, babysitting (if they opted for the nanny service in the room at night), Spa treatments and other services that a guest has to pay for outside package offered.

Thank you, Judith Chalmers 
These listings could never be for the Tapas bar to check the guest expenses since these expenses are for all facilities and services available in the complex.

There are no subtotals. Much less one for Tapas.
So?  

Moreover the Tapas bar is not for the exclusive use of Mark Warner, as seems to be wrongly assumed by many.

It is for all the guests, on half board, full board, bed & breakfast only or just accommodation.

The variations are immense.
Amazing, you should write a book 

The only accounts Tapas need is the cash used to pay bills and an apartment number easily checked on system by either manually entering apartment number or by a swipe card to charge expenses to the room.
Students on a gap year, take note. Aunty Textusa is teaching you how to travel. 

Client gets a receipt, signs and keeps a copy.

Amount shown in “Listagem de hóspedes” (Guest list) is for the central system to deal with ALL information pertaining to guests and/or owners.

Why the document has the handwritten word Tapas on it is a mystery which we will deal with later in the post but one can CLEARLY see from the title the list is called "Guest List" not Tapas bar guest list.
Because it was a copy for the Tapas. Do try to keep up. 

And there’s no evidence of any query to single out Tapas or any Mark Warner guests in its listings.

Did all Ocean Club facilities get daily a complete list of all guests? The Millenium pool bar and restaurant (or were these 2 separate listings?), the Adult pool bar, the reception (to keep a tab on baby strollers and travel cots), the Spa, the Childcare and whoever supplied extras to customers?
Probably 

A daily listing with no respective subtotal?
Yep 

As can be easily seen these sheets are not created or for the use of Tapas bar.
The penny has dropped 

Why on earth would the Tapas bar need the amount paid for accommodation?
They don't. 

Why on earth would Tapas bar staff need to know any other information about all other expenditures a guest may have had? Isn’t that clearly a breach of the most basic confidentiality?
They don't. And no it isn't. 


4.  Amounts

But let’s set reason aside for a moment. Let’s imagine there is some insane reason for Tapas to have been given these sheets.

That reason can only be due to the amounts expressed on the right-hand column, or “Saldo”.
Nope.  

The column Insane has accused us of hiding away from readers.

Let’s once again abide by Insane’s wishes and look at that column attentively.


5. Colours

To facilitate the visualisation of the information contained in the 24 pages in question we will use the same colour scheme we used on our  “Irrefutable Proof” and “Definitive Proof” posts:

Oh fuck, not these bastard sheets again, cried the audience

This way the reader will be able to understand where the information comes from that we are presenting. For example, anything with a blue background is from pages 623 to 626 (May 4 01:48) and if yellow it will be from pages 631 to 634 (May 6 07:05).

We will now look at what, on each of these days, is listed as occupied apartments. We warn it will be repetitive but it has to be that way as the reader will hopefully realise.

As in our “Definitive Proof” we will analyse each set of 4 pages separately. This done we will collate and sum up (#12. Significant and evident difference in numbers) all relevant information from the 6 sets.
I don't see why you should all suffer this cobblers again, so let's cut most of it out 

6. Listings of pages 615-618 (May 1 2007 03:45)



As can be seen, even though the totals obtained from the table and sheets are identical there are EVIDENT discrepancies in the balances referred to in what is a same document for the T1T2, T3F, T3FPand T3FB apartments. 

Only the apartments with no balance, T3 and T4, match between values accounted for in the table and what is expressed in the sheets.

Interesting to see the table stating that the T3FP apartments had a balance of 17,00 € but sheets do not show it.

On the other hand the sheets show a 30,00 € balance for the TZ apartment which is not even listed on the table.

Then we have the “interaction” between the T3F and T3FB apartments. Both have the same 1 591,20 €as balance but it shows up for one on the table and for the other on the sheets.

It begs the question:


No, it ANSWERS the question from last week.

As I pointed out, some guests were incorrectly shown to be occupying a one bed apartment, assuming that in T1&2  the number refers to the number of bedrooms

It seems to have completely escaped your attention that the positive total and the negative totals balance each other and cancel each other out, as do those for T3F and T3FB

And that, basically, is that. Some apartments are incorrectly coded. End of story


7. Listings of pages 619-622 (May 3 2007 01:16)
No, we don't need any of this bollocks.  


As can be seen there are EVIDENT discrepancies in the balances referred to in the same document for theT1, T2T3F and T3FB apartments. 

Only the apartments with no balance, T3, T4 and T3FP, match between values accounted for in the table and what is expressed in the sheets.

We have the “interaction” between the T3F and T3FB apartments. Both have the same 1 591,20 € as balance but it shows up for one on the table and for the other on the sheets.

In this set of 4 pages, not even the totals match. There's a difference of 20,00 €

It begs the question:
:
Already explained, idiot 

Right, I am cutting out the repetitive bullshit, where she goes over the same ground again and again 

The 6 tables shown above:



The summary of the daily differences between the listings and respective table for all 24 pages:


In red, when there were more apartments occupied on the listing than there were on the table. Background blue represents the only times numbers between table and sheets match.

If the intention was to inform anyone about balances then these were certainly not the best documents to that end.

Too many “mistakes” to be accidental.

Right - stop there
The only mistakes of any relevance seems to be that some apartments, in terms of this report, are miscoded.

The most likely explanation is that the field automatically defaults to a specific value - for example T2 - and the operator has to correct to the right one.

I have encountered a similar issue with software many companies use for their employees to track submit and claim their expenses. Each claim can be coded so that individual charges can be charged to specific accounts, but often if the totals overall are correct they will be passed.

If she cannot see that the above shows that  there is a disconnect between the two sources, but the overall totals are correct, then she is a bigger imbecile than previously thought

And in this case detractors cannot resort to “OCR mistakes” because this adding process occurs independently of any sort of character conversion.

A computer does not make mistakes in adding.

It's EHE. Evident Human Error.
Bullshit 

13. The significance of handwriting

The fact that these sheets were doctored is evident and undeniable.
No, there is no evidence of 'doctoring' 

But there’s one detail that aggravates this doctoring even further. The handwritten “Tapas” header.

As we have said, 4 out of the 6 sets have that handwritten header:


Note the repetition in the 4/2 break in continuity as we also saw it in the Tapas Reservation sheets. First 4 days one sort of presentation, the other 2, another.

Before we get to what we think is the reason for this header, shouldn’t we now repeat the question: where is the May 02 set?

Notice its the same person who writes “Tapas” and “Terça-feira” (Tuesday), “Quinta-feira” (Thursday), “Sexta-feira” (Friday) and “Sabado” (Saturday). Shouldn't this same person notice that Wednesday was missing? And just have gone back to binder and complete the information?
Why? This information appears to have been in the folder at the Tapas. Why should anyone have noticed that one was missing? 

No one writes the days of the week without noticing they're skipping one.

Note the handwriting is different from the one in the other 2 sets. It means clearly the first 4 sets were done to “help” the PJ in identifying what each set of papers meant.
No it does not. It is probably no more significant than a different member of staff being on duty 

We think “Listagem de hóspedes” (Guest list) would be sufficient for the PJ to know what the listings were about so why the need to place the “Tapas”, when we have seen it has nothing to do with the place?
These were taken from the Tapas, you idiot. 

It is about the intent to bring attention to Tapas and Tapas only. To circumscribe events to Apartment 5A, Tapas area (restaurant, tennis courts and Toddlers clubs) and Crèche.
These were taken from the tapas, you idiot 

The rest of the Ocean Club, namely the Adult and Indoor pools are blurred completely out of the picture.
So? 

Why is the word “Adult” crossed out:
Who the fuck cares? 


Why so much typexing in this header. Why do the “D” and “Ref” column headers appear not aligned horizontally with the other headers and printed over a typex? 
Who gives a shit? 

As we said in our “Definitive Proof” post, to doctor these sheets the way they were took time, personnel and intention.
There is no evidence they were doctored. This is merely an empty claim on your part. 

The clear intention to mislead.
Nope. 


14. Conclusion

We repeat, the circle of those involved directly in situ with covering up what had happened with Maddie was much wider than the T9.
Yes, so you claim. If I remember it included everyone at the Ocean club, locals, ex-pats, the vatican, several police forces, some judges, 2 governments, sky news and a cast of thousands 
To go after the McCanns and the rest of the T7 is easy.

To fight those who really are keeping the lid on the truth, is a whole different game altogether.
Oh fuck off 

But either one wants to know the truth or one doesn't.
Well, they won't find it here, petal,  

There are 2 ways to look at an elephant in a room. One is to ask what is such an animal doing in such an odd place and seek an answer to that question, the other is to say, no, an elephant cannot be in the room, so that elephant is not an elephant.
Or you can say ''Oh look, an elephant'' Then realise the elephant is nothing to do with the case, and move on. 

Neither attitude changes one thing: that elephant is an elephant and will continue to be an elephant.
Wow - really? Well, this is brand new information........ 

To win a battle with an army of one is much more gratifying than to win it with one made up of battalions, regiments and divisions.
What? 

To win the war with such an army is sublime.

And we aren't an army of one. Neither of three. Far from that.
I think that might be one of her multiple personalities talking. Sorry about that, she won't take her pills. 


Acknowledgement: We would like to thank our friend Shaherazade for all her help and collaboration.
Is she a mental too? 



POST SCRIPTUM:

We would like to tackle a few issues very briefly:


PS.1. “OCR mythology”

As we explained in our last post, OCR was not used when reproducing files.

However, someone, not innocently, has come up with a wonder version of OCR:

“Textusa has come back in today’s post to say that these cannot be OCR errors for a number of reasons. For example, there is handwriting on the sheets and OCR does not leave handwriting on a sheet. It converts it to text, whether such text is clear or garbled.

I am not interested in going into a point by point examination of this stance. It gets us nowhere. The software I have used takes text of the type entering your eyeballs right now, and tries to tidy it up to a recognised word. When the OCR software hits what looks like non-text, it renders it as an image. So images look like images, handwriting looks like an image, and text gets tidied up. But none of this is important.”

OCR may we remind you, stands for Optical Character Recognition. Its acronym has quite clear and explicitly 2 words: Character and Recognition.

As if asked by us, Anonymous 11 May 2015, 17:01:00 in a comment to our “Definitive Proof” post gave us a link, here, that shows the practical use of OCR.

It's the phone listings provided by Vodafone that were OCR’d, says Anon, by Jean d’Arc.


As can be seen, it’s filled with nonsensical spelling mistakes. In just the sample below, 12 mistakes. There are thousands of them in the 195 pages that were converted:


A frequency which is not what is found in Booking sheets.

This is what OCR does when it encounters a picture. It converts into characters:


Or, when encountering something it can’t recognise, it converts into a garbled set of characters that don’t make any sort of sense:


And when it can’t recognise anything, it ignores it and produces nothing:


Or as Insane so correctly puts it:

“OCR can't scan them [handwritten annotations] and resolve them into text so it will ignore them.”

No OCR accounts for the discrepancies found in the Booking sheets.

It’s evident that it’s doctoring. Sometimes truth is so evident that even Insane has to recognise it.

And it's very important the difference between an error that can be explained by software, which is not the case, and the human interference in information handed over to the authorities in the course of an investigation, which is the case.

Fuck me

The word TAPAS was handwritten on after the sheets were printed out, you feeble-minded dimwit.  


PS.2. Apartment counting

This is what Insane has to say about the fact that the computer did not count correctly the “T” it has listed:

“Seriously - an apartment is mis-coded as a T1 when it should be a T2 and you conclude that this means there was a huge, swinging conspiracy going on??”

The question is not whether apartments were “mis-coded” or not.
Er - yes, it is. 

The question is that the computer should have counted the correct number of T1s and T2s, “mis-coded” or not. If its coded as T1, wrongly or not, the computer counts it as T1.
Nope 

“Mis-coding” does not explain why there are more or less T1s listed than those counted and that's what happens in the Booking sheets.
Yes it does 

But that’s not all from Insane on this subject:

“Some numbers correlate if you just count the ones on a Mark Warner holiday, but others don't, so that isn't a full explanation.”

Insane coming to Mark Warner’s rescue.

Insane should also clarify if to correlate one should or not count the times in which MARKWARNER.CO.UK is misspelled like in the examples below:


But what one really has to wonder is from where Insane has got the Mark Warner’s subtotals.
I added them up, shit for brains. 

Without a subtotal one cannot say that subtotal is correct.

Note that Insane recognises numbers don't add up and he has no explanation as to why that happens.

And we agree totally with Insane when he says: “There cannot be more families than there are apartments in which to house them”.

Again, sometimes truth is so evident that even Insane has to accept it
But not so evident that you do, seemingly 


PS.3. Naming names

Insane seems to be worried as to why we have written up names:

“Certainly it's a mystery why you reproduced all the guest names again and again.”

We are not accusing any of the people that Ocean Club, because they appear on these sheets, of anything. If they had nothing to do with this case we see no reason for them resenting the fact that we are doing so.
I didn't say they would. My point was that it's totally unneccessary, and a pain in the arse to have to keep scrolling past. 

And we are not naming names needlessly. We are merely transcribing what is the booking sheets. We were not the ones who put their names in these doctored documents.
Yep. Pointlessly.  

We were transcribing (and have done the same in this post) them so that readers can understand from where exactly we have obtained the information which led to our conclusions. We are simply being completely transparent. 
You are always completely transparent. Just probably not the way you meant. 

If they do feel any sort of resentment they should address the Ocean Club management.

If the list presents a name of a person who wasn’t there that week we can only but note that nothing has been said to the appropriate authorities in the past 8 years.

Speculating, if someone promised others that there was no problem in their names being on those lists and now it appears that it won’t exactly be the case, it’s a problem between the one who promised and the ones who believed in the promise, not ours
Oh do fuck off, you silly cow



PS.4. Apartment designations:

We wrote:

“These are: T1 (1 bedroom), T2 (2 bedrooms), T3 (3 bedrooms), T3F (?? bedrooms), T4 (4 bedrooms), T3FP (?? bedrooms) and T3FB (?? bedrooms).”

Insane responded:

“It means ''Beach Front'', you (censored).”
I think the word I used was ''twat''. Happy to help




We suppose Insane doesn’t mean ''Beach Front'' but ''Front Beach'' as the acronym in T3FB is FB and not BF.
Try it in Portuguese 

Then we suppose the FP in T3FP means ''Front Pool''.

And the F in T3F means just ''Front''. To whatever.

Logic without fault we would say. NOT.

By the way, in the hotel business the acronym FP stands for Full Pension and FB is for Full Board. Why they would be associated with apartment designations we haven't the faintest idea. 
It isn't 
PS.5. Big Round Table
Insane dixit:

“Until next time, I shall leave you with this

It's from the Ocean Club

And it's a big 
(censored) round table. Enjoy”



Yes, it's a big round table but it only has 6 seats, not 9 (or 10 if you count Quiz Mistress)
Ah yes. But it has space for 9. And thank you, I have just won £5 

Yes, it's from the Ocean Club but don't see any such table, or even a similar one at Tapas:

Textusa is a firm believer in the fact that if you can't see something, it doesn't exist. Tell that to an Ebola victim. 

By the way Insane, did you know that your photo can be seen in a link placed by Anonymous at 8 Mar 2014 19:51:00 in a comment to our post “The proof Ocean Club reads Textusa”?

In that post we show the only existing image of THE alleged Big Round Table.

The real thing, as we know, never existed.

And there you have it.

Back to Textusa's central thesis, which is that they are all in it, because they all said they saw the Tapasniks dine there, which they couldn't because Textusa said there were no tapas dinners because there was no big round table.

You see, she decided there was no big round table, and everything else had to fit in with that, hence these lunatic theories.

It's important to remember that, because when Textusa says ''This proves that.........'' what she means is ''I have to make you believe this, because otherwise none of my batty ideas hold together'' 


No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.