What I found out is pretty much that every bit of information has to be taken with a grain of salt, because there is a very strong amount of urban legends, fringe historians supporting outlandish theories with just a bit of anecdotal evidence like the , and bad pseudohistory. There's always claims of mountains of evidence of which just one or two (usually already debunked) examples are provided.
It is somewhat comparable to the pseudo history that's sometimes seen in the African American comunity in the US (like the black egyptian hipothesis, the idea that Jesus was black, etc). The issue is a mix of lack of well funded investigation, distrust of mainstream authorities by the people affected and local pride (that causes good sounding stories to be spread without much research).