The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Billy's Back ... Paul Is Dead
Old 16th February 2017
  #631
Gear Guru
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
I don't think it is really possible.

And I find it amazing that anyone could think it could be done, *especially* with the person in question. Nor is there even a single reason to think it could be or was done. Just a complete fairy tale. Santa Claus is more plausible.
Yes - you've expressed your opinion many times. It realy isn't necessary.

There are many people who think it IS possible, and have given their many reasons. Some of the more compelling ones come from the children that original Paul fathered.

Give this guy a fair hearing ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvtIGhh7gxI for example ...


Quote:
I also find it amazing that you are the "fan" you claim to be. Really weird. How do you feel about musicians you don't like and admire?

To be honest, it's kind of creepy.

Macca's music has been a huge inspiration and i've learned a lot by listening to, playing and generally trying to copy his musical style.

But I do NOT worship human beings. THAT I find to be very creepy and stupid.

When people lie to me, my respect for them diminishes. I cut human beings a lot of slack and would forgive a lot of bad behaviour. But systematic lying about things make me sick. And in investigating this story, I have found that Macca's word cannot be trusted. Never mind the conspiracy ... public statements made about it do not gell with the known facts.

So that is why I find that if he was NOT replaced then his words and actions suggest that he participated in a deceptive marketing campaign on one level while publically denying it with false information at another.
Old 16th February 2017
  #632
Lives for gear
 
JoeyM's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
And in investigating this story, I have found that Macca's word cannot be trusted.
There is a place past intrigue, past decency, past libel and slander, where a close person you care about might try to persuade you to have a psychological exam.

This quest to slander Paul McCartney 50 years ago has reached such a low, a low that lines up with other highly dubious and extraordinarily mean-spirited theories, that I really wish a mod or Admin would lock this topic shut.
2
Share
Old 16th February 2017
  #633
Lives for gear
 
vincentvangogo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
Yes - you've expressed your opinion many times. It realy isn't necessary.

There are many people who think it IS possible, and have given their many reasons. Some of the more compelling ones come from the children that original Paul fathered.

Give this guy a fair hearing ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvtIGhh7gxI for example ...
...
Only checked the first couple of minutes but already found some major issues most notably his date of birth - 10th July 1967. According to your theory that would mean he would have been conceived by 'real' Paul approximately a month after his supposed death. Care to explain that one?
Old 16th February 2017
  #634
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post

But I do NOT worship human beings. THAT I find to be very creepy and stupid.
No one said anything about worshiping.

What the hell did McCartney ever do to you? Other than create great music for you to listen to and be inspired by.

Quote:
When people lie to me, my respect for them diminishes. I cut human beings a lot of slack and would forgive a lot of bad behaviour. But systematic lying about things make me sick.
Lies make me sick, too. You're accusing McCartney, The Beatles, George Martin, and all of their families and everyone else involved, of committing a huge fraud as well as being a huge fraud, yet you have zero actual proof.

The person spreading 50 year old lies, hoaxes, conspiracies and all the rest of the BS is you.
1
Share
Old 16th February 2017
  #635
Lives for gear
 
badmark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
No one said anything about worshiping.

What the hell did McCartney ever do to you? Other than create great music for you to listen to and be inspired by.



Lies make me sick, too. You're accusing McCartney, The Beatles, George Martin, and all of their families and everyone else involved, of committing a huge fraud as well as being a huge fraud, yet you have zero actual proof.

The person spreading 50 year old lies, hoaxes, conspiracies and all the rest of the BS is you.
I don't think you understand the way conspiracy theorists operate. They don't need 'actual proof'. But they demand that of us to prove they're wrong. And nothing we supply will ever come close to that for them.
3
Share
Old 16th February 2017
  #636
Perfectly put.
Old 16th February 2017
  #637
Quote:
So that is why I find that if he was NOT replaced then his words and actions suggest that he participated in a deceptive marketing campaign on one level while publically denying it with false information at another.

So if he was NOT replaced he is a liar.
...and if he was replaced he is a liar ....

Old 16th February 2017
  #638
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
So that is why I find that if he was NOT replaced then his words and actions suggest that he participated in a deceptive marketing campaign on one level while publically denying it with false information at another.
Nonsense. First of all, there was no "marketing campaign" because the Paul is dead hoax didn't start until late 1969, just before they broke up. Why would they put hidden messages on the sleeve of a 1967 album but say nothing about it until two years later, just before they broke up? Doesn't make any sense.

But even if there was, you're making an insane false equivalency there. You're saying that "lying" about a joke/prank/marketing campaign is equivalent to some kind of evil occult cabal replacing the dead Paul with a doppelganger?
Old 16th February 2017
  #639
Lives for gear
 
GeminIAm's Avatar
I initially thought the OP was having a bit of a laugh. Conspiracy theories are fun after all. By page 2 I was ready to google the number for the local lunatic asylum. Wtf is this guy on?? Satanism? Deals with the devil? I don't know what you're smoking but I want some of that. Fml.

Mate. Paul McCartney is alive and well. His music kinda sucks these days though, I'll give you that one.

Can this thread be removed? It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Ever. And yes, I have watched an episode of Ex on the Beach...
1
Share
Old 17th February 2017
  #640
Lives for gear
 
badmark's Avatar
Or lock it.

Then we could start a conspiracy theory thread with more than enough 'actual proof' for Kiwi:

Old 17th February 2017
  #641
Gear Guru
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyM View Post
There is a place past intrigue, past decency, past libel and slander, where a close person you care about might try to persuade you to have a psychological exam.

This quest to slander Paul McCartney 50 years ago has reached such a low, a low that lines up with other highly dubious and extraordinarily mean-spirited theories, that I really wish a mod or Admin would lock this topic shut.
You think you are being clever by being so rude in an obtuse way - but we can all see that you are just being nasty. Have a look in the mirror dude. Not clever.

All along - I just said I read a book and want to discuss it. When I read it, my initial concern - which you can read for yourself - is that this BOOK is so libelous, so slanderous, so past decency that SURELY it must have caught the attention of Paul McCartney and his lawyers. And I have some close to home evidence to know that his layers do not miss a trick when a small business dares to use a partially Beatle-releated name such as Sergeant Peppers.

This book goes way past all those boundries you mentioned - and therefore I could not believe that McCartney has not challenged this.

But - when I investigated, I found - to my surprise - that this is an ages old subject of concern to many people who have stumbled upon problems (or been born into them) caused by this long term mystery.

It's not just me ... so when you say i'm crazy (which you just did) you are dissing many, many concerned people who'se lives have been affected by this mystery campagin ... which is WAAAAY older than this book.

What I find is that McCartney seems to have been personallly involved in fueling the myths and lies. Now I acuallly think that if Paul WAS replaced then this exonerates a lot of his behaviour ... for example, he does not have to defend the accusations of abandonding his children. If the original Paul who fathered those children actually died, then that is not his fault.

So ... I don't think Sir Paul feels libeled or slandered by this sordid little story. I think he has actively fuel and promoted it ... whatever the truth may be.

I don't know if it was a sock puppet or a joke or whatever - but there was a post above which claimed to be Paul McCartney using a moderators account to drop in and say it was all rubbish.

I should have reported it ... because if that was an imposter, the moderators should have deleted it. But I got the impression the moderators approved of it ... which is suggesting it was supposed to be valid.

But all it does is suggest that Macca is still playing games with us.

So it's his public behaviour of feeding us with disinformation or joking about it that makes me believe he is still just having fun with it. Or maybe it's true - and the book explains why his public behaviour has to be this way.

Like I said ... read the book if you dare ... it will definately change the way you percieve this story.

Am I impressed with this behaviour? No. I'm not quite at the stage of burning my Bealtes books - but the more I look into it, that seems a reasonable response.

This book has just caused me to exam what many people have been saying for years.

So yeah ... lock this thread. Delete the whole damn thing - I don't care.

My position all along is that I am not decided. The book is VERY convincing. And if it was just lies and slander about an innocent famous person - it should have been waay easier to demolish. My annoyance is that Macca seems to have a hand in this for his own reasons ... and it makes finding out the truth very difficult. The book gives reasons why this is exactly the sort of behaviour we should expect from somebody with his belief system and agenda.

Thanks to the people who tried to be helpful.

It's ok ... the world isn't always the way it seems, and it's ok to question it.
Old 17th February 2017
  #642
Gear Guru
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeminIAm View Post
I initially thought the OP was having a bit of a laugh. Conspiracy theories are fun after all. By page 2 I was ready to google the number for the local lunatic asylum. Wtf is this guy on?? Satanism? Deals with the devil? I don't know what you're smoking but I want some of that. Fml.

Mate. Paul McCartney is alive and well. His music kinda sucks these days though, I'll give you that one.

Can this thread be removed? It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Ever. And yes, I have watched an episode of Ex on the Beach...
Dude - I'm talking about a popular book in the public domain.

None of the ideas have come from me. They are ages old.

If it upsets you - it should upset you to know that this book is out there, and people are reading and many are giving reviews that say they are convinced it is true!

I would hoping to demolish it quickly. Couldn't.

And lame humour from patehic individuals who don't understand the subject do not help.
Old 17th February 2017
  #643
Gear Guru
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post

The person spreading 50 year old lies, hoaxes, conspiracies and all the rest of the BS is you.
You just don't get it.

It is not me.

It is not just this book either.

McCartney know full well about the whole Paul Is Dead movement.

If he was innocent of any involvement, he could have defused it with a *reasonable* and *serious* public statement.

Instead - we get a few strategically placed throway comments or jokes. Usually when there is an album to be sold. Nothing like a little contraversy to increase sales.

IMO - the person spreading 50 year old lies, hoaxes, conspiracies and all the rest of the BS is Sir Paul McCartney. (Whatever the truth may be).
Old 17th February 2017
  #644
Lives for gear
 
JoeyM's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
It's not just me ... so when you say i'm crazy (which you just did) ...
I mentioned psychological exam, and only one of us assumed an outcome, and that sir, was you.
1
Share
Old 17th February 2017
  #645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
Now I acuallly think that if Paul WAS replaced then this exonerates a lot of his behaviour ... for example, he does not have to defend the accusations of abandonding his children. If the original Paul who fathered those children actually died, then that is not his fault.
There are a LOT of people who have claimed to be the son of whoever in the past when money is involved. They might even believe it (depending on what they've been told - it's a lot cooler to think Daddy was a Beatle than daddy was a bloke down the pub), but modern DNA testing has a way of proving them wrong.

By far the most likely reason these "children" don't match the rest of Macca's kids are because they're not his kids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
I don't know if it was a sock puppet or a joke or whatever - but there was a post above which claimed to be Paul McCartney using a moderators account to drop in and say it was all rubbish.

I should have reported it ... because if that was an imposter, the moderators should have deleted it. But I got the impression the moderators approved of it ... which is suggesting it was supposed to be valid.
Which post? There's no "mod approval" to anything, nor are we validating anything! I didn't see this post, which one and which mod account?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
But all it does is suggest that Macca is still playing games with us.
You have my cast iron guarantee PMcC has no access to a moderator account on GS. I can't be certain of everything, but I can assure you 100% of that I'm pretty sure a tech forum like this isn't on his radar...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
You just don't get it.

It is not me.
No, it's not. It's crazy what people believe in lots of different circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
It is not just this book either.
Nope. Again - look at what else is in that category on Amazon!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
McCartney know full well about the whole Paul Is Dead movement.

If he was innocent of any involvement, he could have defused it with a *reasonable* and *serious* public statement.
The primary reason people DON'T do this is because it lends credibility to the accusations. As you've pointed out before - no smoke without fire. If he defends it, it's far more likely for those believers to say "ah! he's got something to hide!".

You don't even believe in the existence of someone who's life and death was reported in serious journalism, who's world can be verified with a bit of old fashioned non-internet research. And you're at least a little open minded (a while ago you were prepared to agree the whole thing was nonsense). There's a whole bunch of guys out there feeding this who aren't that open (and some who are probably undiagnosed schizophrenics and the like). NOTHING is going to convince them!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
Instead - we get a few strategically placed throway comments or jokes. Usually when there is an album to be sold. Nothing like a little contraversy to increase sales.
And? Does that mean any of this is true, or he might just be having a little joke? Which is in no way a crime - look at the White Stripes (they're brother and sister! no they're not, they're a couple! or are they exes?!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
IMO - the person spreading 50 year old lies, hoaxes, conspiracies and all the rest of the BS is Sir Paul McCartney. (Whatever the truth may be).
Of course he's aware of it; he may even be fuelling the fire a little. That's a vastly different thing to what you're saying you believe. One is preposterous, near-impossible and certainly implausible - if it turned out to be true, it would be the greatest human feat of deception in the history of the western world.

The other option is that it's a bit of banter.
1
Share
Old 17th February 2017
  #646
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
All along - I just said I read a book and want to discuss it. When I read it, my initial concern - which you can read for yourself - is that this BOOK is so libelous, so slanderous, so past decency that SURELY it must have caught the attention of Paul McCartney and his lawyers.
If you search "Paul is Dead" on Amazon, there are a dozen books on the topic just on the first page of the search. So does the fact that they weren't all sued out of existence mean that all of those books are true? Because I'm sure if you read them all there would be contradictory information. They can't all be true.

The fact is that somebody as rich as Paul has nothing to gain by suing a nobody who maybe sold a handful of books. Billy's Back is ranked #786 ,178 on Amazon, and this site estimates that would mean < 5 sales per month.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
And I have some close to home evidence to know that his layers do not miss a trick when a small business dares to use a partially Beatle-releated name such as Sergeant Peppers.
You keep saying that, but if you google "sgt peppers restaurant" there are a bunch of results from all around the world. Again, it's not worth Paul's time to sue everyone who says stupid stuff or names their crappy sports bar "Sgt Peppers".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
What I find is that McCartney seems to have been personallly involved in fueling the myths and lies.
How so? If somebody spread this ridiculous lie about you what else could you do but laugh about it? It's been 48 years of this nonsense. What do you want him to do, spend all of his time fighting every paranoid kook in the internet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
The book gives reasons why this is exactly the sort of behaviour we should expect from somebody with his belief system and agenda.
WTF are you on about? What belief system and agenda? Some crazy bull**** from this garbage self-published book you read? The schizophrenic fantasies of paranoid religious nuts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
If he was innocent of any involvement, he could have defused it with a *reasonable* and *serious* public statement.
He gave a reasonable and serious statement in 1969 FFS! Paul McCartney Interview: Life Magazine 11/7/1969 - Beatles Interviews Database

Besides, no person should have to make a "reasonable" and "serious" statement debunking insane claims made by pranksters just to please the morons and crazies who believe in it.
2
Share
Old 17th February 2017
  #647
Gear Nut
 
kvetch's Avatar
 

The symbolic death and subsequent enlightenment of the candidate during the initiation ritual into an ancient magical mystery school.

The magical mystery tour is dying to take you away
Dying to take you away, take you "to-day" (toward light)
Attached Thumbnails
Billy's Back ... Paul Is Dead-77.jpg   Billy's Back ... Paul Is Dead-02800.jpg  
1
Share
Old 17th February 2017
  #648
Lives for gear
 
badmark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kvetch View Post
The symbolic death and subsequent enlightenment of the candidate during the initiation ritual into an ancient magical mystery school.

The magical mystery tour is dying to take you away
Dying to take you away, take you "to-day" (toward light)
This thread is certainly "A Long and Winding Road".
1
Share
Old 17th February 2017
  #649
Let it be.



2
Share
Old 17th February 2017
  #650
Lives for gear
 
vincentvangogo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
...
If he was innocent of any involvement, he could have defused it with a *reasonable* and *serious* public statement....
He already did in 1969. Even the guy who started the hoax said it was b*ll****.
1
Share
Old 17th February 2017
  #651
Lives for gear
 
vincentvangogo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
...The book is VERY convincing...
To you. But you also thought the clip of George Harrison saying 'Faul' was real and you didn't notice the kid claiming to be his son would have to have been conceived after Paul had already died.
There's a ton of other stuff you either didn't notice or ignored even after it was pointed out to you. There's even people on this thread who've met and/or worked with the guy whose first hand observation you happily disregard, while accepting those of a book backed by no supporting evidence whatsoever except that of two Italian forensic scientists no one can find any evidence of even existing.
1
Share
Old 17th February 2017
  #652
Quote:
IMO - the person spreading 50 year old lies, hoaxes, conspiracies and all the rest of the BS is Sir Paul McCartney. (Whatever the truth may be).
Good on him ! He's a 'marketing genius' !
He really is.

Death is guaranteed to boost record sales.
It worked for Elvis , Lennon , Jackson , Bowie etc.



Bowie's got his own version of the technique going on:

Old 18th February 2017
  #653
Gear Guru
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by vincentvangogo View Post
To you. But you also thought the clip of George Harrison saying 'Faul' was real and you didn't notice the kid claiming to be his son would have to have been conceived after Paul had already died.
There's a ton of other stuff you either didn't notice or ignored even after it was pointed out to you. There's even people on this thread who've met and/or worked with the guy whose first hand observation you happily disregard, while accepting those of a book backed by no supporting evidence whatsoever except that of two Italian forensic scientists no one can find any evidence of even existing.
Stephen Dickenson claims his birth date is 10th July 1967. He just believes what him mum told him - that Paul was the father, but that he died in 1966. The commonly accepted dates are either 11/9 or 9/11. He believes November, whereas the book claims it was September. So that is a good point that if September, that would be a pregnancy of at least 303 days or 42 weeks.

Normal pregnancy is 40 weeks, but there is good evidence that pregrancy can vary naturally by as much as 5 weeks. The longest known human pregnancy is 375 dats (53 weeks).

So it would be a bit of a stretch, but certainly not impossible ... well within the 45 weeks that is still considered natural.

I'll admit that I got fooled by some a$$hole who made a completely deceptive edit to a video clip. That's the problem with this story - there is so much deception out there. And not all of it is coming from amatuers and idiots. A significant amount appears to be coming from Beatles insiders ... people with access to rare footage that is not available to the general public. And the production values are very high ... suggesting the work of people with time and money.

I'm not accepting anything about this story, apart from the fact that EVERYONE lies - including Paul McCartney.
Old 18th February 2017
  #654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
McCartney know full well about the whole Paul Is Dead movement.

If he was innocent of any involvement, he could have defused it with a *reasonable* and *serious* public statement.

Instead - we get a few strategically placed throway comments or jokes. Usually when there is an album to be sold. Nothing like a little contraversy to increase sales.
You simply don't understand McCartney, or others at his level.
There are hundreds of crazy stories going around about McCartney (and other global celebrities) on a daily basis. If they took the time to put out a statement on every daft story they'd be doing a full time job. What is most common is that they ignore them. The crazier the story, the less likely they are to comment.
This is one of the craziest stories I've ever heard about any celebrity, and I'm therefore not the least surprised McCartney has done nothing more than make a few sarcastic comments over the 50 years.
The quote above just shows you have no idea what it is like to be a McCartney, or a Jack Nicholson, or a Kardashian.

When I got the gig with Dire Straits and their world tour was announced, one of the most popular tabloid newspapers at the time lead with the story on their entertainment section. They named all the players in the band, announced the tour dates, then (bizarrely) told their readers every musician was going to end up a multi-millionaire.
The journalist added up the concert venues, added up the individual ticket prices, then divided the total equally between the nine musicians in the band.

Never mind Mark and John were the only original band members and owned the company (Dire Straits). Never mind the journalist hadn't deducted venue hire, promoters cut, managers cut, insurance, security, crew costs, travel, hotels, equipment hire, global insurance etc, etc...
In fact, most of us were being paid a weekly wage.
Did I put put a statement refuting the millionaire claim? - what's the f***in point
Did Dire Straits put out a statement refuting the article - again, why bother
Stories like these are daily events.
2
Share
Old 18th February 2017
  #655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post

I'm not accepting anything about this story, apart from the fact that EVERYONE lies - including Paul McCartney.
Celebrities very regularly get hit up with paternity suits. Why? Because dodgy people know it's easier for a celebrity to pay out a couple of thousand for you to go away, than to go through the legal process of proving the case or not.
You just hire a lawyer, make your claim, and watch the free money roll in.
Seriously, maybe you should stop posting on Gearslutz and start hanging out with celebrities. It is an eye-opener.
I don't envy celebrities one bit.
And have you ever PROVED McCartney was a liar anywhere in this long thread? I haven't seen it.
Prove beyond any doubt McCartney is a liar, or stop making these dubious claims.
The more you post, the more it proves you don't really know anything about McCartney or the life he (and other global celebrities) leads.
2
Share
Old 18th February 2017
  #656
Gear Nut
 
kvetch's Avatar
 

Many people don't fully understand the symbolism going-in, only to get confused when confronted by The Beatles' Shakespeare-like playfulness.

Ringo translates to Apple in Japanese.
Attached Thumbnails
Billy's Back ... Paul Is Dead-hggjgk.jpg   Billy's Back ... Paul Is Dead-gray764-1.png  
1
Share
Old 25th February 2017
  #657
Gear Addict
 
didlisquat's Avatar
 

I am rather sure the Beatles would have never broke up if the real Paul hadn't left them.

Funny how John's songs became so expansive, and "Paul"'s have stayed where they were for the last fifty years.

Can anyone chime in on the proofs from the last month ? The last time I posted on this thread I started getting bullied on other threads (such as my favorite band when I was a kid), so I took a breather and haven't bothered to read a single post since then. Appreciate!
Old 26th February 2017
  #658
Gear Nut
 
kvetch's Avatar
 

Attached Thumbnails
Billy's Back ... Paul Is Dead-1024px-reign_of_the_superman.jpg   Billy's Back ... Paul Is Dead-kirby-macca-12.jpg   Billy's Back ... Paul Is Dead-2rpb336.jpg   Billy's Back ... Paul Is Dead-kirby-macca-16b.jpg   Billy's Back ... Paul Is Dead-buster.jpg  

Old 26th February 2017
  #659
Gear Maniac
 

We've got facial recognition software now, so anyone can test it. Using Microsoft Cognitive Services' Face API, I compared two high quality images of Paul facing the camera (as "Identification works well for frontal faces and near-frontal faces"), one from 1965 and one from 1968. This was the result:

"Verification Result:
The two faces belong to the same person.
Confidence is 0.73."

I compared Viv Stanshall with later McCartney too. The result? "The two faces belong to different persons. Confidence is 0.188."

Try it yourselves, if you really want: https://www.microsoft.com/cognitive-...en-us/face-api
Here are the pictures I uploaded:




and Viv Stanshall:
Old 26th February 2017
  #660
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by icecoolpool View Post
We've got facial recognition software now, so anyone can test it. Using Microsoft Cognitive Services' Face API, I compared two high quality images of Paul facing the camera (as "Identification works well for frontal faces and near-frontal faces"), one from 1965 and one from 1968. This was the result:

"Verification Result:
The two faces belong to the same person.
Confidence is 0.73."

I compared Viv Stanshall with later McCartney too. The result? "The two faces belong to different persons. Confidence is 0.188."

Try it yourselves, if you really want: https://www.microsoft.com/cognitive-...en-us/face-api
Here are the pictures I uploaded:




and Viv Stanshall:
It's amazing how similar those first two guys look.
1
Share
Loading mentioned products ...
Closed Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump