Balance: Unbalanced

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.

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.

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):

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.

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. 

But although he does pose the question “so why did they need a list?” he offers no explanation. 

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

A daily listing with no respective subtotal?

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

Why on earth would the Tapas bar need the amount paid for accommodation?

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?

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”.

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:

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.

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

table at the bottom of page 618

Above is a summary table showing the addition of the information from pages 615 to 618 by its various categories including that of  “Saldo” (Balance).

On looking at pages 615, 616, 617 and 618 more attentively one can see:

(i) All amounts from all T1 apartments listed had a balance of 1 569,40 €:

BARBER (41,00 €), BENTON (4,00 €), BRAIN (151,00 €), BULLEN (34,20 €), BURLTON (29,50 €), CAIRNS 68,80 €), CARPENTER (164,50 €), COX (12,00 €), HALLAM (71,50 €), HARDING (6,00 €), IRWIN (1,60 €), JENSEN (540,00 €), KNAGGS (44,50 €), MANN (3,00 €), MILLS (81,80 €), NEWMAN (17,00 €), O'DONNEL (32,25 €), OBRIEN (105,00 €), OLDFIELD (21,00 €), PATEL (17,00 €), PLANE (23,00 €), SCHARFENBERG (50,00 €), SPERREY (20,25 €), TAYLOR (5,00 €) and THORNHILL (25,50 €).

(ii) All amounts from all T2 apartments listed had a balance of 990,20 €:

BERRY (116,50 €), CLIFFORD (40,00 €), EDMONDS (33,00 €), GORROD (10,50 €), HILLS (65,50 €), HYND (56,20 €), JANCZUR (21,00 €), MCCORMICK (13,00 €), McCANN (242,00 €), NAYLOR (99,00 €), PAYNE (117,50 €), SPEIRS (32,50 €), TOTMAN (33,00 €), WEINBURGER (70,50 €) and WILLIAMS (40,00 €).

(ii) All amounts from all T3F apartments listed had a balance of 1 591,20 €:

BOOKER-MILBURN (1 591,20 €).

(iii) An apartment with designation not listed, TZ, had a balance of 30,00 €:

TAVERNER (30,00 €).

(iv) All other types of apartments listed had no balance.

However the summary table for those pages states the following:

Comparison between the table at bottom of page 618 (what computer added) and what was listed in sheets:

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 T1, T2, T3F, T3FP and 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:

7. Listings of pages 619-622 (May 3 2007 01:16)

table at the bottom of page 622

Above is a summary table showing the addition of the information from pages 619 to 622 by its various categories including that of  “Saldo” (Balance).

On looking at pages 619, 620, 621 and 622 more attentively one can see:

(i) All amounts from all T1 apartments listed had a balance of 1 936,15 €:

BARBER (41,00 €), BRAIN (186,00 €), BULLEN (103,20 €), BURLTON (35,50 €), CAIRNS (70,55 €), CARPENTER (173,50 €), COX (12,00 €), FOSTER (55,00 €), HARDING (6,00 €), IRWIN (1,60 €), JENSEN (568,00 €), KNAGGS (44,50 €), MACKENZIE (16,00 €), MANN (3,00 €), MILLS (106,30 €), O'DONNEL (45,25 €), OBRIEN (105,00 €), OLDFIELD (26,00 €), PATEL (17,00 €), PLANE (86,00 €), SCHARFENBERG (150,00 €), SPERREY (34,25 €), TAYLOR (5,00 €) and THORNHILL (45,50 €).

(ii) All amounts from all T3F apartments listed had a balance of 1 591,20 €:

BERRY (177,00 €), CLIFFORD (58,50 €), EDMONDS (86,10 €), GORROD (10,50 €), HILLS (65,50 €), HYND (98,20 €), JANCZUR (38,00 €), MCCORMICK (22,00 €), McCANN (242,00 €), NAYLOR (110,40 €), PAYNE (162,00 €), SPEIRS (32,50 €), TOTMAN (33,00 €), WEINBURGER (106,50 €) and WILLIAMS (43,50 €).

(ii) All amounts from all T3F apartments listed had a balance of 1 591,20 €:

BOOKER-MILBURN (1 591,20 €).

(iii) All apartments T3, T4 and T3FP listed had no balance.

However the summary table for those pages states the following:

Comparison between the table at bottom of page 622 (what computer counted) and what was listed in sheets:

As can be seen there are EVIDENT discrepancies in the balances referred to in the same document for the T1, T2, T3F 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:
:

8. Listings of pages 623-626 (May 4 2007 01:48)

table at the bottom of page 626

Above is a summary table showing the addition of the information from pages 623 to 626 by its various categories including that of  “Saldo” (Balance).

On looking at pages 623, 624, 625 and 626 more attentively one can see:

(i) All amounts from all T1 apartments listed had a balance of 2 144,30 €:

BARBER (41,00 €), BRAIN (216,00 €), BULLEN (103,20 €), BURLTON (35,50 €), CARPENTER (218,00 €), COX (12,00 €), DOWNHAM (5,00 €), FOSTER (55,00 €), HARDING (6,00 €), IRWIN (1,60 €), JENSEN (605,00 €), KNAGGS (44,50 €), MACKENZIE (39,00 €), MANN (3,00 €), MILLS (137,30 €), NELSON (20,00 €), O'DONNEL (143,50 €), OBRIEN (105,00 €), ODEDRA (5,00 €), OLDFIELD (31,00 €), PATEL (17,00 €), SCHARFENBERG (200,00 €), SPERREY (45,25 €), TAYLOR (5,00 €), THOMAS COOK REP (4,95 €) and THORNHILL (45,50 €)

(ii) All amounts from all T3F apartments listed had a balance of 911,35 €:

BERRY (215,50 €), CLIFFORD (66,50 €), EDMONDS (97,00 €), GORROD (10,50 €), HILLS (65,50 €), HYND (103,95 €), JANCZUR (38,00 €), MCCORMICK (27,00 €), McCANN (242,00 €), NAYLOR (110,40 €), PAYNE (162,00 €), RANDELL (- 450,00 €), SPEIRS (32,50 €), TOTMAN (33,00 €), WEINBURGER (114,00 €) and WILLIAMS (43,50 €)

(ii) All amounts from all T3F apartments listed had a balance of 1 591,20 €:

BOOKER-MILBURN (1 591,20 €).

(iii) All apartments T3, T4 and T3FP listed had no balance.

However the summary table for those pages states the following:

Comparison between the table at bottom of page 626 (what computer counted) and what was listed in sheets:

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 T1, T2, T3F 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.

It begs the question:
:

9. Listings of pages 627-630 (May 5 2007 02:37)

table at the bottom of page 630

Above is a summary table showing the addition of the information from pages 627 to 630 by its various categories including that of  “Saldo” (Balance).

On looking at pages 627, 628, 629 and 630 more attentively one can see:

(i) All amounts from all T1 apartments listed had a balance of 1 074,70 €:

BARBER (41,00 €), BRAIN (216,00 €), BURLTON (39,50 €), COX (12,00 €), DAVIES (30,00 €), FOSTER (55,00 €), HARDING (16,00 €), KNAGGS (44,50 €), MANN (3,00 €), NELSON (20,00 €), O'DONNEL (143,50 €), OBRIEN (105,00 €), ODEDRA (5,00 €), OLDFIELD (31,00 €), SCHARFENBERG (250,00 €), TAYLOR (5,00 €), THOMAS COOK REP (6,70 €) and THORNHILL (51,50 €)

(ii) All amounts from all T2 apartments listed had a balance of 1 377,95 €: 

CLIFFORD (71,50 €), GORDON-CLARK (60,00 €), GORROD (10,50 €), HILLS (65,50 €), HYND (103,95 €), JANCZUR (38,00 €), KIRKHAM (18,00 €), MCCORMICK (32,50 €), McCANN (242,00 €), PAYNE (177,00 €), RANDELL (450,00 €), SPEIRS (32,50 €), TOTMAN (33,00 €) and WILLIAMS (43,50 €)

(iii) All amounts from all T3F apartments listed had a balance of  1 635,70 €:

BOOKER-MILBURN (1 635,70 €)

(iv) All apartments T3, T4 and T3FP listed had no balance.

However the summary table for those pages states the following:

Comparison between the table at bottom of page 630 (what computer counted) and what was listed in sheets:

As can be seen there are EVIDENT discrepancies in the balances referred to in the same document for the T1, T2, T3, T3F and T3FB apartments. 

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

Interesting to see the table stating that the T3 apartments had a balance of 18,00 € but sheets do not show it.

We have the “interaction” between the T3F and T3FB apartments. Both have the same 1 635,70 € 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 9,00 €. 

It begs the question:
:

10. Listings of pages 631-634 (May 6 2007 07:05)

table at the bottom of page 634

Above is a summary table showing the addition of the information from pages 631 to 634 by its various categories including that of  “Saldo” (Balance).

On looking at pages 631, 632, 633 and 634 more attentively one can see:

(i) All amounts from all T1 apartments listed had a balance of 1 038,10 €:

DAVIES (53,00 €), HOBSON (18,00 €), MARKWARNER.CO.UK (555,00 €), NELSON (20,00 €), ODEDRA (5,00 €), SCHARFENBERG (300,00 €), STEVENS (78,00 €) and THOMAS COOK REP (9,10 €)

(ii) All amounts from all T2 apartments listed had a balance of 685,95 €:

GORDON-CLARK (60,00 €), GORROD (10,50 €), HYND (103,95 €), KIRKHAM (18,00 €), RANDELL (450,00 €) and WILLIAMS (43,50 €)

(iii) All amounts from all T3F apartments listed had a balance of  1 635,70 €:

BOOKER-MILBURN (1 635,70 €)

(iv) All apartments T3, T4 and T3FP listed had no balance.

However the summary table for those pages states the following:

Comparison between the table at bottom of page 634 (what computer counted) and what was listed in sheets:

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 T1, T2, T3, T3F and T3FB apartments.

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

Interesting to see the table stating that the T3 apartments had a balance of 18,00 € but sheets do not show it.

We have the “interaction” between the T3F and T3FB apartments. Both have the same 1 635,70 € as balance but it shows up for one on table and for the other on the sheets.

It begs the question:

11. Listings of pages 635-638 (May 7 2007 07:16)

table at the bottom of page 638

Above is a summary table showing the addition of the information from pages 635 to 638 by its various categories including that of  “Saldo” (Balance).

On looking at pages 635, 636, 637 and 638 more attentively one can see:

(i) All amounts from all T1 apartments listed had a balance of 1 442,50 €:

BLACK (47,50 €), DAVIES (53,00 €), GRAFTON (2,50 €), HOBSON (32,00 €), JENSEN/WILTSHIRE (17,00 €), MARKWARNER CO UK (555,00 €), MULLARD (25,00 €), NELSON (20,00 €), NEWMAN (25,00 €), ODEDRA (5,00 €), PARR (43,00 €), PRICE (18,00 €), ROGERS (5,00 €), SAVAGE (2,50 €), SCHARFENBERG (350,00 €), STEVENS (136,40 €), STURROCK (78,00 €), THOMAS COOK REP (9,10 €) and VINCENT (18,50 €)

(ii) All amounts from all T2 apartments listed had a balance of 853,05 €:

CULSHAW (23,50 €), DE LA MARE (9,00 €), FRICKER (10,50 €), GORDON-CLARK (60,00 €), HARRISON (5,00 €), HUMPHREYS (3,50 €), HYND (141,45 €), KIRKHAM (18,00 €), PEART (17,50 €), RANDELL (450,00 €), STINTON-HEELEY (51,60 €), TOWNLEY (19,50 €) and WILLIAMS (43,50 €)

(iii) All amounts from all T3F apartments listed had a balance of  1 635,70 €:

BOOKER-MILBURN (1 635,70 €)

(iv) All apartments T3, T4 and T3FP listed had no balance.

However the summary table for those pages states the following:

Comparison between the table at bottom of page 638 (what computer counted) and what was listed in sheets:

As can be seen there are EVIDENT discrepancies in the balances referred to in the same document for the T1, T2, T3, T3F and T3FB apartments. 

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

Interesting to see the table stating that the T3 apartments had a balance of 41,50 € but sheets do not show it.

We have the “interaction” between the T3F and T3FB apartments. Both have the same 1 635,70 € as balance but it shows up for one on table and for the other on the sheets.

In this set of 4 pages, not even the totals match. There's a difference of 8,00 €.

It begs the question:

12. Significant and evident difference in numbers

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.

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.


13. The significance of handwriting

The fact that these sheets were doctored is evident and undeniable.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

Why is the word “Adult” crossed out:

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?

As we said in our “Definitive Proof” post, to doctor these sheets the way they were took time, personnel and intention.

The clear intention to mislead.


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.

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.

But either one wants to know the truth or one doesn't.

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.

Neither attitude changes one thing: that elephant is an elephant and will continue to be an elephant.

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.

To win the war with such an army is sublime.

And we aren't an army of one. Neither of three. Far from that.


Acknowledgement: We would like to thank our friend Shaherazade for all her help and collaboration.



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.


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.

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.

“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.

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.

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


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.

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.

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.

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.


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).”

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

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. 


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)

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

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.