It has been frequently claimed that the moon landings were faked somewhere in the Nevada desert - or Area 51 or the barren jard behind Joe's garage. And the main claim is always that is has been done by slow-motion frames. This has been refuted and disproven several times so I won't go into the physics side anymore but will try a different angle.
Stanley Kubrik, the famous director of 2001, has often been referred to as the genius who has (allegedly!) faked the moon landings on a remote spot in the London suburbs.
And here's my challenge: if he was so apt and so good in faking the moon landing and if it's so easy to fake low gravity by slow-motion pictures then why doesn't the scene where Dr. Heywood Floyd walks down the trench to the monolith looks more convincing?
The group of scientist walking clumsily down the ramp don't look at all as if they're in low gravity. On the contrary, they look exactly as a group of actors pretending to walk as if in low gravity. And I maintain that nobody could be fooled into believing that this was filmed anywhere but on earth.
In fact, every Sciene Fiction movie has refrained from "faking" low gravity (be it on the Moon , Mars or Deneb IV) by slow motion because it is not so easy to deceive the eye. And the movie Apollo 13 even took on to "fake" weightlessness with parabolic flights to make it convincing.
Maybe this thought experiment helps to convince some of the the hoaxters ;-)
Extracelestial
P.S.
To anybody offended by my critisism of the TMA scene - I'm a big fan of this movie and still enjoy it tremendously.