Gaz: what you stated was that "A legend can be both true and untrue". I was not prepared that it could be Both. I am not even certain that the dictionary definition will allow it to be either.
Your latest claim: "Loch Ness Monster : Legend : Untrue (So Far!)" seems to state that there is no such thing as the Loch Ness monster ("legend:untrue") but there may be in the future ("untrue: (so far)")
The bit with 'Cliff Stoll' really has me confused about what you are trying to say. Is 'Cliff Stoll' supposed to be an imaginary person, and you are showing me he exists, or are you showing that 'Cliff Stoll' has provided a factual basis to something previously regarded as legend ?

Nigel