Finding cherry picked motion differences between the first Apollo motion and a later Apollo mission is not a valid comparison, since there are fundamental differences between what the astronauts are doing, and why.
The Apollo 11 clip used, is where Buzz Aldrin is performing mobility tests on the Lunar surface. He is not attempting to do anything other than test how to move about on the Lunar surface. The camera used has a 10 frame per second rate, has fewer horizontal lines, and is black and white. On a first mission to the Moon, one would expect, by any stretch of the imagination, that the astronauts would be moving with a lot more care than later missions.
Comparing it to the last mission of Apollo, belies the fact that during the other missions, they were able to verify the safety and efficacy of the equipment and suits, were a bit more sure with their footing and were a little more adventurous as a result.
The clip used by most hoax believers(HBs) is the one that shows that very mobility test where Buzz Aldrin gently runs towards the camera. Sped up 200% the clip resembles Earth motion. I cannot deny that fact, though to a trained eye, his steps fall just a shade too slowly to the surface for Lunar gravity.
Now, here is a video that refutes the idea that speeded up footage of 200% was used on all missions (this claim was made by David Percy). The video includes a clip from Apollo 11, where Aldrin retrieves the Solar wind experiment and moves with absurd speed and body motion.
Now, since that video was placed on youtube, Cosmored has made allegations that it was incorrectly sped up and that subterfuge was used. This, despite refusing to verify the allegation by doing it himself.
I took it upon myself to do just that.
Here is the clip in question, normal speed 30.72 seconds:-
Here is the clip in question, double speed 15.36 seconds:-
That one clip makes a mockery of the doubled up speed contention.
I now present a series of videos to refute the ignorant contention that 150% motion was used with wires. Special invisble wires of course.
In this video, I show 3 objects being thrown. I determine the time from apex to surface and calculate the gravitational acceleration as equating to that of the Moon. I then calculate the necessary gravitational acceleration corresponding to speeding the clips up 150% and show that the gravitational accelerationis completely untenable for the heights and times relating to the 3 objects.
Question: Were inanimate objects on wires?
These objects do not correspond to Earth gravity when using your 150% theory!!
Using this clip (watch?v=kibAjb6qjtQ) showing normal speed, I demonstrate the motion of a dust wave as being fully consistent with Lunar gravity. I show how a very accurate time was taken, and an equally accurate height. I demonstrate that the rise to apex time for your 150% theory is completely wrong. I further demonstrate that the distance the dust wave moves, has a truly preposterous initial velocity for Earth gravity from a sideways flick of the boot. I finally show the footage at speed that would make the rise to apex equate to Earth gravity (245%), that is ludicrous motion.
Question: Was the dust on wires?
The dust wave does not equate to Earth gravity when sped up 150%. A dust wave could not be kicked like that with a casual flick of the boot.
In this video I demonstrate Gene Cernan bunny hopping on the Moon, and take one of his jumps to show Lunar gravity. I slowed down the film to gain an accurate time. The result of the equation to change this to 150% is untenable.
Question: Are you suggesting that Cernan, a few hundred yards away from the camera was indoors and wearing a wire?
Question:] Do you think a man on Earth could bunny hop those distances, travelling down a hill, with no arm movement to increase distance between jumps?
The idea that 150% was used for later missions is contradicting the theory of David Percy. You rely on him for that clip, yet disagree with him.
This video shows Cernan's "Hippity Hoppity" jumping sequence. Once again demonstrating consistency with Lunar motion. His natural forward motion is not impeded as his centre of gravity changes, indicating a complete absence of support. The video then shows that not only is David Percy's theory completely wrong, and to a trained eye, visually so....it also shows that a 150% theory is also wrong.
Question: If you maintain that non-visible wires were used, please account for an absence of retrograde motion always caused by them.
Question: How could anything track and match the distance he covered with a perfectly vertical wire?
John Young's jump has been exhaustively analysed. David Percy on the one hand says wire supports were used, then makes the observation that they never jump high enough!
David Percy is a deceptive businessman, and I have made a video showing a blatant example of this in video 5.
The video shows how Percy has taken a small clip, deliberately avoided the sections either side of it, and made erroneous claims as to the motion sped up 200% reflects Earth gravity.
Now, the obvious lens flare from Apollo 14 that is alleged to be a wire, and the "ping" on Apollo 17!
The Apollo 14 clip is a very over exposed piece of footage. Everything about the shot shows this clearly. The "ping" occurs exactly where the radio antenna sits, and the secondary reflection is not vertical. It is the most obvious case of a lens flare you could get. Quite why they would need to use wires on Apollo 14 in the fist place makes no sense. There is not an awful lot of activity from what I can recall.
The Apollo 17 clip is an internal reflection probably made during the copying process. It has no such anomaly on the original footage. The "ping" is in the shape of the reflection seen a split second before, from the radio antenna.
That is conclusive as proof could be, of the consistency of Lunar gravity, and the untenable position of speeded up footage.