For all those photo analysts than I, which is pretty much most of you people. How was Jack White's adjustments of image parameters debunked
Jack White didn't know what he was doing with those adjustments, and was in no position to interpret the results.
All of the ones I saw he hadn't tweaked copies of scans of the film rolls but of later generation images. There's an obvious problem with doing that: many had already been touched up in order to look better on the printed page. For example, the sky might be deliberately blackened out (on the scans it can look like a lumpy green texture when you zoom in due to scanning artefacts). This may have been done using Photoshop in more recent years, or by using standard dark room techniques in the earlier years. Jack White then made the logical leap that this was evidence the photos themselves had been faked, refusing to even entertain the idea that it may have been caused by the processes I mentioned above.
One of the best ones was the "tweaking" he did of images of the Sun (actually it may have been Percy). He claimed it showed that the Sun was actually a huge light-bulb: what he was actually looking at was the glare, not the disc of the Sun itself. You could prove this quite easily by showing photos where the glare of the Sun partly occluded an object in the foreground, e.g. the LM, proving it could not have been a massive light-bulb. Such refutations generally went ignored.