Those are not great reasons. For instance, 2-4 are essentially the same, and are not explained at all. 5 is a joke of some kind, and 1 is not reason enough to believe anything. Might be reason enough to form a hypothesis, but how would you even go about testing such a hypothesis?

After all you can cook up multiple self-consistent ideas of how a machine works in your imagination, but until you actually examine the machine you can't say that your idea actually explains how it works. It's a way it might work.

Usually you want to have at least some cursory observation to form a hypothesis, but admittedly it's inherently very difficult to observe something like the nature of how you are able to observe things. That's why I'm so hesitant to believe anyone who says they have objective knowledge about it.