"FACT: the film is in the public eye and popular. FACT: Lockheed Martin and Charlton Heston and the NRA would win quite a bit of money in court if they can prove that Moore lied.
Fact: Documentary Filmakers voted to give Mr. Moore that oscar
Fact: those film makers know a lot more about Filmaking than David T. Hardy."

Interesting. I don't have any use for the NRA, but the questions about Moore's credibility are getting louder. Check this link: Bowl-o-Drama
I can imagine that Forbes could be biased in this report. But, by the reasoning above, if it's not true, Moore would wind quite a bit of money in court if he could prove Forbes lied.

Or look at the list of complaints about Moore's veracity at this link at spinsanity.com: Michael Moore

I'm quite impressed that they seem to take all sides on, left, right and center. Take a look at the other articles for yourself. Why would these guys lie? At what point does a filmmaker's right to tell a story slip into intentionally misrepresenting facts to sensationalize and even lie to get attention? Is it wrong to question his credibility when he portrays himself picking a gun up at a bank and makes the comments he does in the movie when that portrayal is contrary to the actual facts in the matter? I know it's only a movie, but when the points he makes as factual come into question, are we still supposed to believe everything he says?

In any case even Mr. Moore's greatest fans might want to check the facts before taking anything Mr. Moore says too seriously, just to separate the artistic license from the truth.