The uncertainty principle tells us:

"If we accurately measure the momentum (m.v) of a particle, then we will no longer be able to correctly measure its position."
This is totally false, since to measure the momentum of a particle we must find it and measure it there, in its position, never where it is not.
Therefore, the mass of a particle is measured where it is located (position) and its speed is measured by the changes in position it acquires with movement.
Then, why the interest of Quantum Mechanics in this principle and base?.
Well, because Quantum Mechanics is a sea of confusions, speculations and false considerations and it needs a principle or justification for when such confusions occur:
When something is not explained or is contradictory then we say: "that is due and explained with the Uncertainty Principle", and what it would mean as:
"Accept it without understanding it or finding its logic, it is a quantum axiom and nothing more".
From here, and with these premises, everything is possible: The simultaneous life and death of Schrodinger's cat; the situation of a particle in several positions at the same time; virtual particles; particle entanglement; the observer's influence on physical events, etc.
The pity of all this is that scientists are turning us into believers of incongruous, illogical, false theories, etc.
And don't contradict them, because if you do, you're ignorant and stupid.

But what is the technique to make us believe in this principle?
Well, the same as the conjurers who make the rabbit disappear from the hat:
Give us an infinite series of confusing assumptions and examples so that at the end of the assumption and explanation we have already forgotten the physical essence of the event, and we are full of doubts and confusion.
For my part, I have not seen a logical and convincing explanation and demonstration of this principle.
Now of course, I respect any point of view of others.

When we want to measure the situation and moment of a particle (or other larger object) we have to do it simultaneously, that is, in the same place and time where the particle is.
Later, if we wish and we can, we will make other measurements, but they will already different measurements, in different places (position), at different times and with different moments.
This is why the justifications for the Uncertainty Principle are incorrect and manipulative:
"If we measure the situation of a particle, it can change its momentum, and then we will no longer be able to measure it adequately"
Of course, logically, agree.
But that second measurement will already be another measurement, at another time, in another situation and with another momentum.
No, the assumption and correct proposition is the opposite.
A) Are you (or we) able to measure the momentum of a particle?
B) Yes, I am.
A) Well, do it and you will see that by measuring the momentum, you will have also measured the situation, since the situation is the base and place where the momentum is measured.
And that in addition, with the reliability of one, will increase the reliability of the other.
* What is certain is that if the situation is unknown x=0, the moment will also be unknown p=0, and not the contrary as the Uncertainty Principle tells us.

We know that the momentum of a particle or object is gotten multiplying by its speed (v) by its mass (m).
And analyzing what speed is, we realize that it is the space traveled by the particle in a unit of time. v =s/t.
Therefore, to find the speed of a particle we have to observe and measure its position and movement over a sufficient period of time to adjust it (as in the drawing).
But to make sure a little more we could ask ourselves:

Uncertainty principle: A fallacy and manipulation. (art. 2012)

Location and momentum of a particle:

Thank you friends.