Quote - Oh I have proof for you:

Thanks.

I don't have the time or energy to check all these out thoroughly right now, though I hope to give it more attention eventually.

However, just skimming over the first three links you offered:

I noticed the first doesn't prove very much of anything, i.e., the claim that Moore creates the impression he was cut off may or may not be an accurate interpretation, but I would have to watch the movie again to determine whether it is or not. Further, the claim that his mike was not cut off is, again, merely asserted, not proven. That there is a transcript is, again, asserted, but the transcript is not produced, so far as I noticed. Nor is there is any proof offered that Smith ever publicly addressed Moore's comment and, unless I misinterpreted, the video quotes Smith as saying he did not respond. Finally, at the end of the video, though this may be a somewhat damning confession depending on the context, at least when I play it back, the movement of Moore's lips does not appear to match the audio, whatever that may or may not mean.

The second appears to mostly express unsupported opinions of the author, provide anecdotal evidence (which again proves very little as for every anecdote that demonstrates one thing there is almost always an anecdote that demonstrates its opposite), and asks a rhetorical question or two without any indication that the writer did any research to find out if Moore's assertions were factual or not, i.e., they are apparently just assumed by the author to have been "blithely" asserted on Moore's part.

The third very promptly opines "may have cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided" without providing any evidence to substantiate the "conservative" characterization and without any mention of the possibility that the same circumstance may have cost Gore votes as well -- which seems, on the surface at least, to betray some partisan bias on the part of the author, which may or may not color the author's judgment and interpretations as to what is and is not deceitful and/or intentional. I would have to investigate further to determine that.

So . . . my first impression is that there are interpretations going on in all three of these, and apparently some cherry-picking of facts as well, but very little, so far, that indicates the authors are being substantially more honest -- or exhaustive with the facts -- than Moore.

And in any case, though I've only seen 2 of his films, my impression is that Moore is fairly upfront about his bias. In my opinion he makes it amptly clear he is promoting his point of view. The authors of the above-mentioned critiques seem to imply it is dishonest to promote a point of view, but I find a filmmaker that is upfront about the fact that that is exactly what he is doing to be far more honest than what is most often merely the pretense of objectivity, whether we should call him a documentarian or not.

The accusations in the above links of intentional deceit presuppose that a documentarian must be exhaustive and objective in every sense, that there can be no unconscious bias, i.e., all interpretations of all facts must be entirely conscious if the deceit is intentional, and further, the omission of any significant fact can, and perhaps should, be interpreted as intentional deceit. By that standard, I'm not convinced any documentary that has ever been, or any that will ever be, could ever be characterized as anything other than deceit, as there is always room for one more salient fact on one side or the other of any issue, and there will always be many who will feel that the omission of that fact did irreparable harm to their "side" of the argument.

In short, I'm not all that impressed so far, but as I said, I mostly skimmed. There may very well be good information here. I hope to eventually take more time to look into it, and will withhold any further judgment until I do.