I'm not sure why you're making this distinction. Smaller MACHOs were ruled out by gravitational lensing searches, and larger MACHOs (which emit some light) were ruled out both by those and by visual searches. The Wikipedia summary describes all of this pretty clearly, and provides several references.



We know how much dark matter is needed to explain galactic rotation curves, so MACHO theories cannot simply refine their predictions to be smaller and maintain viability.



You seem to have the impression that scientists are taking dark matter "on faith" and are therefore overly committed to "validating" the theory rather than determining what the evidence shows one way or another. I see no objective justification for this impression; it seems to stem from your own limited knowledge of the existing evidence, as well as a limited knowledge of how scientists actually do research.



Your descriptions in this paragraph are almost entirely hyperbolic. A comparison to epicycles, "dogmatic refusal," "radical and tortuously convoluted," "new radical terms"... come on.

Your preference is irrelevant to true scientific parsimony. We should prefer utilizing existing phenomena to explain new results if and only if such an explanation works just as well as other, more complicated explanations. Decades of research has led to the conclusion that this is not the case for dark matter, period. You seem determined to ignore or marginalize that evidence, but again, that's a problem with you.