Only watched the second video because I'm lazy, but if the first is anything like the second there's no point.
Summary of the second video for anyone else who doesn't want to watch it:
The real Mecca was originally somewhere else but was moved to it's current location by the Saracens
He figured out where the original Mecca is supposed to be using the direction of the original Qiblas, and limited info in the Quran (verses not given)
He doesn't say where it is I watched the video twice to make sure I didn't miss it
The place still exists, but doesn't look the way it used to due to wars
The closest thing i can think of related to this is the fact that the original mosque has two arches, one to the Kaaba as normal and one to Jerusalem. That's just because the whole praying towards the Kaaba thing wasn't revealed at the time it was built.
As for a proper refutation, it's hard to do when we have nothing to go on except this guy's word. From a practical standpoint, I'd say it's false because moving Mecca would also imply moving the surrounding areas, otherwise the Quran would be referring to areas that are in the wrong place. It would also imply moving stuff that's pretty hard to move, like the Kaaba (which is a stone shed in a massive stadium-like area) and the well of Zamzam (a well from Abraham's time that's still around). If someone were to do all this, there would surely be some documentation of it.