Arguments that they slowed down the film/video to simulate diminished gravity simply don't hold up in any way. It doesn't hold up when David Percy makes it. It doesn't hold up when Bart Sibrel makes it. It doesn't hold up when Jarrah White makes it. Just because someone else copies an old claim and presents it again doesn't mean it suddenly becomes undebunked. Yes, Jarrah is the latest to make the same claim, but it doesn't change the absurdity of the argument itself. If you want to argue that he somehow got it right where everyone else failed, then I'll point to Jarrah's manifest ignorance of most of the sciences and mathematics pertaining to space and engineering -- he even has problems with simple arithmetic. So no, it's not likely that he somehow got it right.
As has been pointed out, only one precise ratio yields a frame rate in which gravity is seen to behave correctly for the lunar environment. Very few of the hoax proposals (and none of them mentioned here lately) name that frame rate. That means Jarrah is wrong -- a 33% reduction in earthbound frame rate cannot produce authentic gravity falls for the lunar environment. It means Percy is also wrong -- 50% is the wrong ratio too.
But the argument is even more wrong-headed than that. "Speed the lunar footage up by ____% and it looks normal," is a begged question for all values you put in that blank. The claimant is asking you simply to agree with his core proposition. The application of some digital or video tool to alter the frame rate gives the illusion of rigor, but the only determination that matters depends entirely on a subjective impression. And we've see how that impression is manipulated to seem convincing: omitting rigorous measurements, shortening and cherry-picking the clips. "Looks normal" simply begs the question, and it doesn't matter how you arrived at your "magic" frame rate ratio.
But wait, before you answer, you also get a hefty dose of affirmed consequent. If you have some observation A, and you apply some transformation T(A) on it to produce A', and you argue that A' is equivalent to B, then this does not prove that all observations of B must be transformed As. That's the dry logical formulation of it. Concretely expressed, if you say you can take Earth footage and apply some sort of transformation to it and make it indistinguishable from authentic Moon footage, that doesn't prove there can't be any authentic Moon footage, nor that any example of purported Moon footage must necessarily be transformed Earth footage. That's the essence of the affirmed consequent and why it can't be used to prove anything.
Now granted hoax believers use this to rebut the claim that the Moon footage cannot have been faked on Earth, which is a claim debunkers often make. It is likely a true claim, but it doesn't have to be true. The hoax claimants say the Moon footage was faked. The converse of that is that it was not faked, and an easy way to argue that is to show that it cannot have been faked. "Cannot" is the ultimately strong form of "was not," but the null hypothesis is merely "was not faked," which is why the burden of proof must be on "was faked." When we strengthen the null hypothesis, we lower the bar for the hoax believers -- they think all they have to do is prove it wasn't impossible, and they've proven that it happened that way.
So to sum up we have one deductive failure (the habitually wrong ratio), and two inferential errors (begging the question and affirming the consequent). Those individually and collectively doom the argument, no matter whose YouTube video they appear in.
