Thank you so much for providing this comment. When I was done reading the original link I was wondering if I had missed the author's explanation as to what the alternative theory was. It seemed they were simply saying, "I don't believe it, so it can't be true." Which is more or less what they did, at least in writing. The author may be fully aware of what you mention, but that certainly did not come across at all in what was written.
The author is trying to make an argument that it should have been done by the original researchers - since the implied conclusion is impossible and thus wrong, they shouldn't have been allowed to publish the study with this conclusion without a proper interpretation; and even though he might have some interpretations, what matters is that it was their job to produce them and include them in the paper.
Quoting OP, "It is up to authors to interpret the effect size in their study, and to show the mechanism through which an effect that is impossibly large, becomes plausible. Without such an explanation, the finding should simply be dismissed."
And specifically, that the impossibly large effect has no plausible psychological basis, putting the onus on the researchers to perform additional due-dilligence in the face of data that is completely outside the bounds of the theoretical model(s) under discussion.
