Imagine someone read "Bunnicula: A Rabbit-Tale of Mystery".
They think the ravenous eating habbits of the rabbit is strange, when it dawns on them:
A horde of Bunniculas must have caused ecosystem collapse in the area of the Roanoke colony, forcing the colonials to retreat from starvation!
I don't usually do actual "blog" posts on this, but I decided it would be good to make one.
Despite the fact that no one he knew had ever heard of any such nearly-carnivorous bunnies, he sets out to find evidence, and starts publishing documents that cite evidences of aggressive rabbits and rodents, as well as strange teeth / jaw deformations in rabbit specimens.
Other people like the theory, because they've also read the books and believe they must be based on fact. They begin combing the earth for evidence of these bunnies who must have vanished shortly after the Roanoke colony incident, as no evidence has been found of them after it (or really before). Because the scientific community condescends this search as it's only based on a children's story, they avoid the peer review process and instead build up databases of information that doesn't accept comments supporting the Bunnicula argument.
As no evidence is found, and it happened so long ago, their argument can't be falsified, and no evidence of theirs has ever gone through the peer review process. They run it up against all the other theories such as drought or other explanations that have been much more favored by scientists and historians.
They attempt to tell people how right it is- they make strawmen of the other explanations and tell their side as a fact, attempting to spread into different domains such as the public school system and encyclopedias- they begin attaching labels like "Scientific Papers" to their works, and find people with Ph.D's in cryptozoology and philosophy to help make their works more credible.
I'm sure a more-astute reader would know I'm not talking about Bunnicula.