Legends & Lies

Actually I took issue with the episode featuring Jesse James too, mostly for some of the reasons as the previous comment. I take exception to what the previous comment said about Jesse James being connected with the KKK though. James was instead connected to the KGC, which stands for the Knights of the Golden Circle, whose aim it was to reignite the Civil War and the money they raised was solely for that purpose. In one of the group pictures of the James brothers, Frank James and others are seen displaying the sign of the Knights of the Golden Circle, which was two fingers over their chest.

In the episode featuring the Lone Ranger, there may be another explanation for Bass's accidental shooting of his cook. I just saw a documentary on the History Channel about the Winchester 700 rifle which has been misfiring for decades, until finally the courts are seeing a backlog of accidental shootings when the safety is released or the rifle is bumped.

I'm not a wild west expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know quite a bit about one of them. I've read / seen just about everything there is to see on Billy The Kid and The Lincoln County War. So I'll speak about that episode.

I watched that episode first because of the fact that this is a Fox News produced show. I found what I usually found with Fox, they don't out right lie or anything, but they don't tell the entire story at all. They leave out things and take "artistic" license with a lot of it. Which is fine, unless you are running a series which is supposed to tell the "truth" rather than Legend.

Dermot Mulroney was a great choice for the narration, and most of the experts are very well respected. I don't know what makes Bill O'Reilly an expert at all, other than the fact that he produced the show.

The Billy the Kid episode was deeply flawed, for example, when they show the part of Billy's capture at Stinking Springs they make it look like a town, when in fact it was barely a building. Also they make it look like there was a big gun fight between Billy and Pat, when in fact Billy gave up after Pat and his crew opened up on Charlie Bowdre, mistaking him for the Kid. They also make a lot of assumptions about Pat knowing Billy. When in fact he barely knew him, but that doesn't make for good TV does it.

I could go on, but basically this is like everything Fox News does and should be taken with a grain of salt. There are plenty of real documentaries out there if people are interested in the subject. I'd suggest watching those for a true historical account.

Come on folks. Every single historical book, movie or series has people come out who are self proclaimed experts in one way or another in the target subject, decrying the lacking of something factual or the inclusion of something non-factual. Historians don't all agree on everything...consumers of media and literature certainly wont.

History is written by those who control the printing presses of the news of the time, or by those who research the records of the time...records which were written by humans who often have agendas or biases.

Today is no different. Media bias is as bad as it ever was, and full of lies mixed with facts, misinformation and blatant acts of omission in order to shape the history of the future with the news of the day.

That said, anyone who 100% believes anything they didn't see or do themselves could easily be a fool.

This is a great series and is intended for the ignorant masses who know little about history...which is the vast majority of humans walking the earth, let alone Americans. It's a little glimpse in to the past assembled in an entertaining way and the target audience is people who are interested in a little "light" learning while being entertained.

The History Channel does this all the time and this series is comparable to anything the History Channel does, and the graphics and HD quality is first rate. I watch on a 1080P screen and watch Blue Ray DVDs, and this series straight off of Dish HD from FOX Business Channel is first rate production...in my "consumer" opinion.

I didn't see the first season, but only the two following ones. What's striking to me is what has already been expressed a few times here. It pretends to go beyond the common narrative. But in fact, it totally gives in to the common narrative! And doesn't go any deeper. It's well made and it's good, but only skin deep. The title is only a pretense, a bait. I don't dislike O'Reilley. He's the type of guy whom you can call "wholesome". He comes in all square. The series here are the same: no subtleties, but interesting nonetheless and fun to watch.

Having done military history for over 40 years, and been involved in multiple movie, documentary, and museum productions, I can truthfully say saddles and bridals were wrong, total wrong firearms used, with a complete mismatched hodgepodge mess of them in a same scene or even shot. Principal actors cannot act, and they cannot ride at all. Background setups were totally inappropriate for the era and area.

Your history lesson is close, but not correct. If you're going to teach history, which I assume is what you're trying to do, you failed horribly.

Truthfully the only thing pleasant about this episode was the narrator's calm voice.

You set documentary making back 50 years.