If a "skeptical" counter-explanation to some claim is demonstrably wrong, people who are more on the fence about the claim may start to lean somewhat more in the acceptation of those claims.
There's a valid argument that even very "basic" default skepticism is generally preferable, as it's "erring toward realistic possibilities," based on what's known to be real, or more likely real, compared to the "open mindedness" toward the extraordinary or not established as real. Right most of the time, versus only extremely exceptionally not totally wrong.
Arguably a skeptical argument countering a claim should itself be expressed with some uncertainty."It's far more likely this comparatively banal explanation, or maybe this other relatively trivial thing, or maybe even this rare thing but known to actually exist." Versus something that leans more boldly into one specific possibility that's not specifically confirmed on that instance. To state that trivial thing ABC only "may be" the explanation is not implicitly suggesting that utterly unfounded hypothesis XYZ is even tenable. Even "no particular alternative explanation comes to mind right now, but XYZ is extremely unlikely regardless," can be preferable in some cases, ideally followed by "standard" known problems for XYZ to be considered real.
One example of an instance I think went poorly was of a skeptic countering that a deformed skull was one of an human-alien hybrid by saying it was one of a gorilla. It was definitely not one of a gorilla, which just don't have hydrocephalic-like larger vaults. What may look like a big vault on the gorilla's head is actually partly from the angle and a bony "keel" for muscle attachments, the vault itself is rather small. Human hydrocephaly, even artificial reshaping, or even adulteration happen to be better alternatives than "gorilla skull," which ends up being a point in favor of the one defending it's "alien hybrid" for part of the audience, even if in making it seem like the skeptic is just rationalizing a conclusion made in advance, rather than something more positively in favor of the "aliens" proponent.
Besides that, we have a propensity towards some degree of "strawmanning" in mocking/parodying certain claims. While this is potentially too funny to be altogether avoided, perhaps it should also be sometimes followed with some sincere "steel-manning" of the claims we're addressing.
Doing it shows a more thought-through process, harder to be taken by those "on the fence" as an acritical reliance on canned explanations, group-thinking, which can be the result in cases when a "skeptic" counter-argument happens to be demonstrably wrong, despite being inherently more parsimonious than the claims being made on the other side.
The steel-manning itself may in some cases end up not being something that really strengthens the extraordinary claims, but rather highlights its "unlikelihood," by stressing on several assumptions that must be held in order for the claim to possibly be "true," but that are most likely overlooked by the actual proponents.
It may end up being more like an exhaustive parody covering highly specific details in a way, depending on what the claim is, and what would be necessary for it to possibly be true. So even the humor of the straw-man parody is not necessarily lost, although it changes from something like "this is not another ZAZ-wannabe spoof movie" to something more like "Monty Python," or whatever are one' preferred examples of sources of dumb jokes and more elaborate ones.