Claims without evidence can be refuted without evidence. I take it she has nothing at all to back up her claim? Just something she claims to remember seeing 34 years ago?
I generally agree, but IMO, if evidence can be offered to refute, it still should be. In that spirit:
Before anyone chimes in, the Viking landers were not rovers, a Viking Rover was planned for the unflown 1979 launch.
They also couldn't send back video. Both landers had two still cameras, neither of which created instantaneous photos, but did 5 vertical lines of 512 pixels every second. It could do any width of image by rotating while it scanned, but only 5 vertical lines of pixels every second. A 512x512 square image would take almost two minutes to create, a full panorama (512x9150) took over a half hour to complete.
Simply, it could not capture the footage she claims to have seen. I can't find the bitrate on the high gain antenna, but I don't believe it could send the video back if it could, and it definitely didn't have enough data storage (1280 megabits on a tape drive on the orbiter) to buffer it.
They used one of the cameras to take a picture of the program staff. Several people moved and are distorted in the picture. A few actually appear in the picture multiple times because after the camera scanned past them, they walked around it and got back in line farther down.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-425/ch8.htm
This is the staff photo. As you can see, people are cut in half, or weirdly clipped and distorted. Several people appear more than once. And they had to stand still quite a while in the desert for this. I've read that if you have the larger version, you can actually see the sweat stains on a few people get bigger from right to left as the camera scanned them.
Also, this is what happens if something moves more than just a little bit while the picture is being taken:
This is the very first picture taken by one of the Viking cameras. The vertical lines, marked with arrows, are not defects, but the lines being scanned when cars drove by.
A very slow turtle came out distorted like this:
The camera got about two thirds of the way past it before it started moving, creating the black smear towards the corner.
Even in a clumsy era-appropriate space suit in 1/3 gravity, an astronaut would move much faster than a turtle that keeps being messed with by scientists. At best, if they were coming straight towards the camera fairly slowly, they'd be a scrambled mess of nonsense since none of the lines would closely line up with the ones on either side. If they were crossing the frame, they'd only show up as a couple vertical lines that could easily be dismissed as artifacts.
As I mentioned in my Rosetta debunk, in general, video capability is actually really rare on unmanned probes. It takes more power to capture, more data storage to hold, and faster bitrate (and thus even more power) to transmit back to Earth. It's also often of dubious scientific value, depending on the nature of the mission - timelapse (like the "videos" Voyager sent back) is often used, but would be completely useless to create the footage claimed here (and even then, Viking couldn't do effective timelapse either with the way its cameras worked). Unless there's some specific reason (like Deep Impact needing to observe the ejecta spray from its impact probe), they usually leave it at home.
Curiosity has the first true video camera we've put on the surface of Mars and it's limited to 10 frames per second of heavily compressed HD.