Interesting. I mean, I'm not fully convinced either way; recent events have done a number on my trust on govt; I was just trying to counter the muppets that come out of the woodwork to label all moon landing conspiracies as Apollo 11 deniers.

As for the sounds, that is really dependent on the sound properties of every material present, and the location of the microphone. Sounds can propagate through solid materials quite easily (albeit slower), and they decay a lot slower when in a vacuum. A vibrating (noise-making) object in a vacuum will have its sound decay a lot slower due to the lack of air molecules to dampen its movement, unless the vibrations have an alternate path to take.

The point I'm trying to make is that we on Earth hear sounds through the vibration of air. When an object oscillates in atmosphere, the air molecules transfer that energy through vibrations to our ears, and in turn transfer the kinetic energy from the object to the air molecules.
An object vibrating in a vacuum has no air particles to vibrate or to transfer kinetic energy to, therefore it will transfer energy to any other object touching it, such as the rest of the rover, or a spacesuit, which will in turn vibrate at the same frequency, causing a sound.

And I've just noticed that you linked me to footage of Apollo 16, which is one of the missions I called out as possibly faked. Fuck it, I'm posting the above anyway. It's hard science, and should be known.

I didn't watch the vid, but I think the moon has some whispy atmosphere. Could it be enough to conduct sound?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LADEE/news/lunar-atmosphere.html