history txt

7/25/2019 History Txt

1/11

SteelBadger135 months agoDeniers have micro-penises.?6emaneman1 day ago+SteelBadger13 would you rather I pay??SteelBadger13SteelBadger131 day ago+eman Yes. Just like everyone else you filthy free loader.?ramona priceramona price6 months agothat is so cool. When i first heard this, i was like " WHAT?? but How is that possible??"now that I see it its pretty amazing to know this, the moon does have less gravity than here on earth and no air what so ever. I'm kinda just getting into physics and its not all that bad. =)?8emaneman3 days agoHow do I know for sue that's a feather? I mean really... I'll start with that.?Liak ScanthLiak Scanth3 days ago+eman don't say more. it makes you look and sound retarded.?Lawrence Meng

Lawrence Meng2 days ago+eman shhh listen to liak?emaneman1 day ago+Liak Scanth +Lawrence Meng maybe I should just go to sleep huh...?frencheneeszfrencheneesz5 months ago (edited)0:42 "Galileo was correct in his findings."And now back to our regularly scheduled programming:"BEEP, beep, BEEP, beep, BEEP, beep, BEEP, beep, BEEP"?27Ken PrestingKen Presting2 months ago

I have to say it reflects badly on YouTube that so many hoax and conspiracy videos pop up next to this priceless demonstration of basic science. We all have toreconsider the hope that the Internet would become a means for educating the world.

Wikipedia has found the way to be both completely democratic and still intellectually useful. If YouTube keeps to it's popularity-based model we have to doubt it's overall social value.?2you saidyou said2 months agoI think you're right in saying that we have to doubt its social value, but I think that the doubt always has been there and, most likely, will always be there t

hat this is not a place for education.

I'm split both ways on this one. I hate the fact that people live their entirelives believing stupid crap like the Earth is flat or humans have never been onthe moon before, but at the same I am firm believer in freedom of information, which happens to include conspiracy theories and the likes.?Russ BrownRuss Brown1 week agothe feather bounces and flips over when it hits the ground?


2/11

Marcus HauptMarcus Haupt1 month agoThe mistake that tells you the video is fake is that at about :29 the camera zooms out to show two (2) astronauts in the frame (you see the helmet of #2) . TheApollo 15 mission Lunar Module only held two (2) astronauts, the third stayed inthe Lunar Command Module with orbited above the moon. So if there were only ever 2 astronauts on the moon, who was zooming the camera? And then at :45 a thirdastronaut comes hopping along into the frame. So is this video is some kind of joke??dexter432432dexter4324321 week ago+Marcus Haupt To answer your first question, the Apollo TV camera used during the Apollo 15 mission was able to be remote controlled from Mission Control on Earth, thus negating the need for a cameraman. As to your second question, that "third astronaut" is clearly still the second one.?Professor_SmileyProfessor_Smiley2 months agoThis is not the full video.?1Cheyenne AlvisCheyenne Alvis4 months agothe moon has a gravity of 1.62m/s^2 but note that the hammer and the feather dotoo.ultimately the hammer would hit the moon one hundred billionth of a second befor

e the feather does because the hammer has a stronger gravity than the feather.in the same way that the sun has a stronger gravity than the earth, the earth astronger gravity than the sun and so on?1No NoNo No4 months ago+Cheyenne Alvis The hammer and the feather are almost in the same point, thus when the hammer pulls the moon closer it also pulls the moon closer to the feather.?1Ron HandlonRon Handlon3 months agoWell said, Kylar and, yes, it is a beautiful thing... ;>}?

Redstone-powered-blazeRedstone-powered-blaze1 year agoThis video proves the moon landings.?19TheBartman47TheBartman471 month ago+informatimago Actually, they've tried this and you CAN distinguish between a slowed-down video vs actual low-gravity situation by comparing human movement in the way they walked on the moon vs on Earth. Watch the MythBusters episode on this which debunks all the hoax believer's claims.?1vahnn0vahnn04 months ago

My only question relates to inertia. The hammer is undoubtedly more massive thanthe feather, so wouldn't it have greater inertia of rest? I would think it would take longer for the hammer to actually begin its descent from its resting state than the feather.

My understanding of the physics is admittedly rudimentary at best, and I've never attempted the math at it. Perhaps the distance is so small and the masses involved are so small that the effect isn't as noticeable, as neither object is reaching its maximum velocity, but it still strikes me as odd.


3/11

Can someone set me straight here??Ronnie HossainRonnie Hossain1 month ago+a goudyYou should phrase that more carefully, of course mass matters once you include friction. (Since you take gravity's 'acceleration' as a given, you must now calculate the drag force's acceleration which of course depends on mass.) I appreciate that you undoubtedly understand that perfectly well, so I won't be condescending by explaining it in further detail, just wanted to point out your wording issuggestive. ;-)?Andrew JacksonAndrew Jackson1 month ago+vahnn0 IF air is the only thing holding the feather up then that means air is also holding the hammer up. This means they would still fall at different speeds.Technically you should be able to do this experiment in water. Not sure how todo it but if gravity is a constant then you should be able to replicate the results. Also where is the video where they pump so much air into the chamber than the bowling ball floats? You know because air is the only thing holding it up.?one Alinone Alin2 weeks agoDuring the day the temperature on the Moon can reach 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius), while at night it can drop to -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius). A falcon feather on the moon at +123 celsius ? You can bake a cookie 123 celsius.?Spill Burg

Spill Burg1 month agoim just glad it wasnt a gerbil and cardboard tube.?Mikael MurstamMikael Murstam1 year ago (edited)To any doubters: I measured fall time to 1.294s in a video editor. If the fall height is 1.4m the fall time should be 1.3s, so it is not only plausible, it is perfect. There is only one place in the universe that we know of where this couldhave been done, and that is on the moon, our moon. g=1.62m/s^2?104tae kag ipottae kag ipot1 year agoor in a vacuum chamber, just saw a video of that and lead me to this video :D?20

Mikael MurstamMikael Murstam1 year ago (edited)eh, a vacuum chamber would not change the gravitational constant. If you have avacuum chamber on earth the gravitational constant would be 9.82 instead of 1.62. So no, the only place in the universe that we know of that would fall in thisway is still the moon. It is true that the feather and the hammer would fall atthe same speed on earth in a vacuum chamber, but it would fall faster than in the vacuum on the moon.?56Joshua HarkeyJoshua Harkey1 year ago+tae kag ipot You don't understand his point. Two objects will certainly fall at the same rate in a vacuum chamber. But the speed they fall (how long they both

take to hit the ground) depends on the strength of gravity. He's saying that ifthis was done in a vacuum chamber on Earth then they would have hit the groundsooner.

Now, I'm no moon conspiracy theorist, but one could argue that they simply played the video in slow motion.?22Kenny CrossKenny Cross1 year agoI love the video of him trying to pick up the hammer after.?


4/11

3ajtronicajtronic1 year agoI love how you did the math on this haha. Perfect.?1Mikael MurstamMikael Murstam1 year ago+Gabriel Stinson gravity dictates how fast it accelerates in a vacuum. On the moon it accelerates slower than on earth (in a vacuum chamber).?7Joshua HarkeyJoshua Harkey1 year ago+Gabriel Stinson You sound like you know what you're talking about, so I'm confused why you're contradicting me. If acceleration is the rate which an object changes speed, how does the acceleration of gravity not affect the speed of a falling object? It does by definition. You contradict yourself.

An object dropped in a vacuum on Earth reaches the ground in less time than an object dropped in a vacuum on the Moon because it accelerates to higher speeds over the same distance.?2mikecat23mikecat231 year ago+tae kag ipot http://laughingsquid.com/a-feather-and-a-bowling-ball-dropped-toge

ther-inside-the-worlds-largest-vacuum-chamber/?Tarso F. CassolTarso F. Cassol1 year ago+Mikael Murstamthe only place in the universe, are you sure about that? Then there is no otherplanet or satellite with equal or nearly equal moons gravity? Universe probably is too much bigger than you can imagine.?1Mikael MurstamMikael Murstam1 year ago (edited)+Tarso F. Cassol the probability of an exact mass is not likely. I have a prettysolid grasp about the size of the universe. My point is that we humans couldn'thave done it elsewhere. Of course you can find bodies with a similar mass.?

3edawg792edawg7921 year ago+Mikael Murstam I'm just being pedantic, but in the Milky Way galaxy there are like 100,000,000,000 stars, and there are an estimated 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe. I'd say there's a decent chance, maybe not an exact mass down to the same number and composition of atoms, but still very close in mass.?2Mikael MurstamMikael Murstam1 year ago+edawg792 yeah I know, but that is far from my point.?4

edawg792edawg7921 year ago+Mikael Murstam yep I was being pedantic :)?Keon CrosswellKeon Crosswell11 months ago+Kenny Cross Me too!?Erik lErik l11 months ago+Mikael Murstam you are right and it's fun to see that someone has done the mathfor it. However when you're saying gravitational constant i suppose you mean gr


5/11

avitational acceleration. The gravitational constant is a constant, G, just likeavogadro's constant or c, the speed of light. It is roughly equal to 6.6738410-11 m^3 kg^(-1) s^(-2) and coincidentally (not really) fits Newton's gravitationallaw F=Gm1m2/r^2. Perhaps you already knew this and mixed the two up which I've done myself sometimes but whatever, it's fun posting interesting facts anyway.?4Mikael MurstamMikael Murstam11 months ago+Erik l yeah I know. I just forgot what it was called in English, I guess. ?3Erik lErik l11 months ago+Mikael Murstam to be honest I'm not entirely sure what it's called either, allI know is that the gravitational constant is something different. The 'gravitational acceleration' is just an educated guess?Erik lErik l11 months ago+Mikael Murstam vnta lite, du r svensk antar jag :p?Mikael MurstamMikael Murstam11 months ago (edited)hehe japp. Kom inte p hur jag skulle skilja mellan gravitationskonstanten och jordens gravitationskonstant. Bda r ju gravitationskonstanter p ett stt (vid ytan iaf)Bara olika konstanter :P. hmm gravitationsfltets konstant kanske??Erik l

Erik l11 months ago+Mikael Murstam har hrt tyngdacceleration men vet ej exakt hur det verstts till engelska. Och om man ska vara petig s r ju inte tyngdaccelerationen helt konstant till och med p jordytan men tillrckligt fr att man ska kunna rkna p det i de flesta f, men det r ju och vara petig i detta fall?Erik lErik l11 months ago*att. Slank in ett stavfel dr, attans?Mikael MurstamMikael Murstam11 months ago (edited)+Erik l ja det r en funktion av avstndet till centrum, men brukar rknas som en konstant d den varierar s lite p avstnd ovanfr ytan som r mycket mindre n avstndet rum.?

Rusty NuggetRusty Nugget9 months ago+tae kag ipot you forget that in a vacuum chamber on earth the gravitational pull of earth is still 9.8 which is the same as in your room or down at the mall. to fake it they'd have to create a room where the gravitational pull is the sameas on the moon?Jip JacksonJip Jackson8 months ago+Mikael Murstam Have you done calculations of the supposed speed difference? IFit was faked obviously a lead lined feather or whatever have been used. I'm just wondering what that would be.I have forgotton now what speed I used but if you take all footage and speed upby certain amount boy it sure looks fishy and I'm not on any side just looking

at what I'm seeing with no preconceptions. Especially in the moon car, it looksterribly like an RC car I have in every way. Also you can zoom in and slow it down, the drivers arms DO NOT MOVE yet the car is doing donuts, in fact nothing moves, his body his head, not even a slight indication, rock solid. He sure hassome tiny precise controls if so which is opposite of what I would install intoa car designed to be driven by a guy wearing a chunky space suit.

Anyway I hate math but I would be interested in hearing if anyone has done the speed up version.?Mikael Murstam


6/11

Mikael Murstam8 months ago+Jip Jackson A speed up version wouldn't look normal because you are not only changing gravity but also inertia. A car would look much lighter, like a toy car etc.?1cromascromas8 months ago+Joshua Harkey one couldn't argue the video is being played slowly, because gravity causes objects to accelerate, not just to fall. The graph of position/time would have a different shape between the two locations, not just the time-of-impact.?1Quark RSQuark RS8 months ago+Mikael Murstam I'm not a doubter, but what if they did it in a descending elevator to reduce g??IndustrialDonutIndustrialDonut8 months ago+Mikael Murstam Lol I was just going to do that so I came here to see how long it took and oh goody someone posted in the comments already for me!?Erik lErik l8 months ago+cromas no, second degree polynomials describing height as a function of time will have different x^2 coefficients but can easily be changed by adding a constan

t (slowing the video down).on earth it can be described ash(x)=-4,91x^2+1,4on the moon:g(x)=-0,81x^2+1,4but can also be written asg(x)=-4,91(1,62/9,82)x^2+1,4

?downthetube withindownthetube within7 months ago (edited)+Jip Jackson I do not doubt Mikael Murstam 's calculations as they seem reasonable:. h = (0.5)*(g*t^2) = 0.5 * 1.62 * (1.3^2) = 1.37m.

Apollo 15 wires?I'm wondering too. Look at the contrast of the background behind both the hammer/feather - the image varies over a gradient of color and grayscale. Wires wouldhave needed shading similar to the background contrast (to be hidden) at the beginning when the astronaut enters the field of view and then would need to change contrast dynamically as the experiment proceeds. There are numerous frames circa 0:16 - 0:17 where he thrusts the hammer upward in his right hand (then catches it), with the same inertia as him hopping about into the scene. To my eye, the hammer's local motion is very natural and consistent with that of the astronaut. At that point any wires would have been exposed by contrast differences.Secondly, in the downward acceleration of hammer/feather, seen frame by frame, the wires would need to be accelerated exactly along with their contrast changes

against the background in order to be undetected by viewers if this was a fake.

Film manipulation? What was the state of nonlinear (digital) editing technologyin 1971 for color (not black/white) imagery? How many bits of dynamic range inthe ADC(s) were used? What was the differential non-linearity of the ADC(s) back then that might have degraded the color components to further complicate promulgating an illusion? Does there exist a SMPTE version of this video in which,maybe linear editing techniques could have been used to "erase" the wires? Unlikely! Even a wire has a color/grayscale gradient so that more than one horizontal pixel in each vertical line of video would have needed to be replaced with an


7/11

interpolation of the gradient background image.Non-Lin. editing Ref: http://filmmakeriq.com/lessons/the-evolution-modern-non-linear-editing-part-1-from-tape-to-digital/

My question is why would so much money, resources, and effort be done to fake out viewers given US lunar missions would end with Apollo 17 less than 2 years later in Dec. 1972. Did advertisers want to sell more Tang, and this esoteric scientific experiment in tribute to Galileo Galilei was just the right recipe? Whowould have been the target audience of such skullduggery? Investors and big oilweren't interested in constant gravity experiments or landing on the moon. Themoon's high ground must have had or has strategic military value but why fake landings mission after mission and then perform this kind of experiment, which iffaked, requires lots of effort (beyond the technology of the day) to make it seem real?

Unless some initial set of assumptions can be agreed upon, all discussions on whether moon landing occurred or not are doomed to hearsay opinions rendered by experts, amateurs, or trolls. That's the e-motive world of YouTube!?1Jip JacksonJip Jackson7 months ago+downthetube within I believe they sincerely wanted to do this. As for motivation let's not forget the times. We were NOT going to fail to be first to the moon, the big bad enemy of the time the Russians had mad fools of us by getting to

space first (If you care about that sorta thing, I could care less. We are thehuman race, to me accomplishments by people don't fall under just a flag) and there was no way we were gonna either loose or just be seen to give up. Status iswhy. A country that wants to see itself as top dog doesn't announce a moon landing, spend ten years on it then say "Well we can't actually do it yet." Ain't gonna happen. Not at that point in time. If you didn't grow up during the Cold War you can't understand the mindset we were IMO propagandized into having. I just caught the tail end of it but I can tell ya failure was not an option.To me ever since I was a kid I thought the films looked screwy but couldn't place it. Never had the ability to watch at my lesiure before either. Even still Inever woulda though twice about it till I heard someone else say they thought the same. For me it was just part of history that happened just before I was born. If this turned out to be faked it's just another scary reminder that history,

no doubt a very large amount of it, is simply B.S. but once it's down in the books long enough, it simply becomes fact.?downthetube withindownthetube within7 months ago+Jip Jackson Agree, it doesn't really fall under any one flag, I like that. Myfriends and I watched this video in elementary school when it was happening in1971. I don't care for those who would dismiss this video or NASA's Apollo Program as being faked by a, "them," government conspiracy. That kind of thoughtlessness dishonors the men and woman, Russian and American who paid for space exploration with their lives. It also dishonors scientists and engineers who developed the "ilities" we enjoy today, born out of those early ideas.Have studied actual hardware displayed in many different museums around the world/country, all those crude wiring harnesses, intricate pipes/regulators and cont

rols for propulsion systems. Over the years, have seen similar hardware and bygone technologies, each having improvements. Design/development efforts on thatscale are hard to fake. One could also follow the money and patents released -the research grants spread out so largely, into so many supporting fields, to realize that market chaos alone would have undermined any concerted conspiracy. Still, that Cold War consequence was a booger, more so dire for Cold War Soviet occupied countries than for us. NASA was just a small side note, IMO.One other interesting observation in the video: the hammer would have felt heavier than the falcon feather to Cmdr D. Scott (because of Newton's F = M*A); yet,the objects fall at the same local gravitational acceleration, A. Perhaps a be


8/11

tter experiment, if a complete field of regard could have been caught on camera,and which would have been even harder to fake, would have been to toss both objects from the same hand, having the camera track their entire trajectory paths.The centrifugal force of his arm would have launched the heavier hammer higherfrom the moon's surface than the feather, and of course, per kinematics, the feather would have won the race to the lunar surface.?2Russ BrownRuss Brown1 week ago+Mikael MurstamGood old slow motion filming?Mikael MurstamMikael Murstam1 week ago (edited)+Russ BrownAs I said above slow motion wouldn't work because you would not only change thegravitational constant but also inertia. The way they move and everything wouldn't look realistic. No this footage could only have been made on the moon.?1mundi strepitusmundi strepitus1 week ago+Mikael MurstamExcellent!?Saqr AlawlaqiSaqr Alawlaqi1 month ago

If you drop a feather on earth it won't fall that fast as the video while earth's gravity is stronger than the moon's.

Second, if moon gravity is week ,it DOSE NOT mean that all objects on the moon are having the same weight.

All Apollo's missions are bullshit.?Arkalius80Arkalius801 month ago+Saqr Alawlaqi On the Earth, there is an atmosphere. The feather is not very dense and very flat, so it will have a large coefficient of drag, thus slowing itsdescent considerably.

The point of the video isn't to demonstrate that all objects have the same weight. That is clearly false. The point is to demonstrate that two objects in the same gravity field will experience the same gravitational acceleration (ignoring any air resistance, which wouldn't exist on the moon). That acceleration is independent of the objects' mass or weight.

The hammer is heavier, but gravity pulls everything at the same acceleration regardless of weight, and this demonstration illustrates that. The equations bear this out.

The attractive force of two objects due to gravity is equal to G*M*m / r^2 where, M is the mass of the larger object (the Earth, or the Moon), m is the mass ofthe other object, G is the gravitational constant, and r is the distance between

them. Acceleration can be derived from the equation F=m*a, giving a = F/m. Thusthe acceleration due to gravity is equal to (G*M*m / r^2) / m which simplifiesto G*M/r^2. The mass of the falling object is no longer part of the equation meaning the acceleration is based only on the mass of the thing you're falling to,and your distance from it.?1Chris FooteChris Foote10 months agoHey, Youtube, what's with the links to moon hoax conspiracy BS on the right??15


9/11

kenstr321kenstr3211 month agoMy question is more simple. How did a feather survive on the surface of the moonbeing hit by the suns rays? I understand things can't carbonize (burn) in a vacuum, but they can loose structural cohesion and the temp on the surface in the sun is as high as 250 Fahrenheit, outside the sun's light it's as low as -380 Fahrenheit which is cryogenic. I understand that it takes longer for heat to reachthe feather due to the fact that no air means it can only be heated through radiation (heat radiation) but the protein should still brake down. Why does the feather stay solid??Perry RamseyPerry Ramsey1 month ago+kenstr321 Give it some time and it will break down. But not instantly.

The temperature of the feather won't be outrageously high. Worst case maybe 120deg C if it's 1) black, 2) in full sun, and 3) you left it there for a long time. He pulled the feather from a pocket just before shooting. 120 C (about 250 F)is a barely warm oven. Put a flight feather in an oven at that temperature andsee how long it lasts. You can't even cook a turkey at 250 F; feathers are muchmore durable than flesh.

The feather was left on the surface, so it would have decomposed over time. My g

uess is that the UV from the sunlight is more damaging than the temperature. There's probably not much left now, but it would have been durable enough to survive a 60 second TV spot.?BeeryBeery5 months agoDat low gravity doe . . . mmmm . . . imagine if they had brought a trampoline how much fun they could have!

Honestly, it seems like the cold war was the best thing to happen to space exploration so far, and it's sad. When humans are competing and see others as their enemy they will go to any lengths to win, but when the only competition is withinthemselves they couldn't give two shits. imo I think humanity has failed the test of higher cognitive functioning and we have shown ourselves to be wholly unwo

rthy of the gift of intelligence.?1TuxfanturnipTuxfanturnip3 months agoNow design a trampoline you can lift with one finger, that folds into a lunchbox, and is possible to unpack while wearing inflated gloves. And a million-dollarjustification to bring it all the way to the moon. :P I think we're on our way back to a widespread public fascination with space and to much better ways of getting there: NASA, with its inefficiencies and budget problems, is doing a good job of PR and groundbreaking science, tweeting from the ISS, putting rovers on Mars, photographing Pluto, etc, while private companies are starting to follow behind and make things more routine. (SpaceX Falcon 9 + Dragon, Boeing's Starliner)Maybe we'll live to see the first televised Lunar Olympics, featuring bicyclist

s in pressure suits soaring off jumps, swimmers dolphin-diving over hurdles, and, or course, trampolines in 1/6th g.?Marcus HauptMarcus Haupt1 month agoWhile many people seem amazed by the video it is a fairly easy thing to fake. You tie fishing line to the top and bottom of the hammer and feather. A little pull from above and they look like they're floating. The fishing line will be invisible to the camera. When the actor releases his hands pull down on the fishing line (have two assistants standing below the stage), which will make the objects"drop." You can control the speed of the "drop" to make it match any expected re


10/11

sult. After the hammer is "dropped" the line from above is pulled to make it appear to be in "zero-gravity." You can practice this until it looks good enough for the average Joe and then play the recording back and say its "happening live."?EDUARDO12348EDUARDO123481 month agoGravity is not a pull, rather a push from imperceptible planetary magnetic fields. In the moon the feather and hammer hit the surface at the same time because there is no air to resist the greater surface area of the feather.?AutoplayUp next

Gravity Visualized apbiolghs 20,395,271 views 9:58

Polight And Tazaryach Set Fire To The Streets SANETER STUDIOS Recommended for you 1:22:57

5 Min 100% Proof - Apollo = Hoax by Joe Rogan spacehopperballs 127,530 views5:23What The Hell Crashed On The Moon NASA And Why Are You Still Silent? DarkSkyWatcher74 2,053,638 views19:39

Marcus Allen - moon hoax More Talk 80,311 views38:39Apollo Moon Anomalies Paranormal Crucible 458,369 views5:06CHINA LANDS ROVER ON MOON - ANOMALOUS STRUCTURES & UFOS secureteam10 2,526,097 views11:28The Truth Behind The Moon Landings Jeff Webber 509,402 views48:005 Most Mysterious Photos from the Moon Dark5 2,871,490 views5:07Mythbusters Moon Landing photo hoax 1 Dolfan0925 1,723,081 views4:16

The Dark Side Of The Moon Astronaut Reports Of Music And The Truth Behind The Moon Landings Stargazers Nation1,112,989 views56:24Science proves that NASA faked the moon landings - Moon landing Hoax OrgonVpH7 2,013,719 views29:375 Experiments that Could have Destroyed the World Dark5 11,501,705 views5:46Irrefutable Proof for Moon Landing - Lunar Gravity amontaiyagala 371,037 views5:40Fake Moon Landing? Rebuke #2 Astrobrant2 1,170,236 views9:24The Moon Is An Illusion & No One Goes Above Low Earth Orbit Crrow777 433,126 vie

ws21:22The Reason NASA Never Returned To The Moon (Full Documentary) KateLalit 19,108,265 views27:25MoonFaker: A Puffy Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon. P1 Jarrah White 20,594views10:54The Moon Landings Fact or Fiction complete fixed robertelee2k9 truth seeker 186,238 views


11/11

1:58:02The Moon is Fake I Guess Armoured Skeptic 223,932 views16:58

History

About Press Copyright Creators Advertise Developers +YouTube

Terms Privacy Policy & Safety Send feedback Try som

history txt

Documents