Someone correct me if I am wrong, but here is my take:
1: The GeoForecaster Work provided the data
2: Lowell is part of GeoForecaster
3: Lowell evaluated the predictions
4: Lowell was pretty generous about success and partial success.
5: Combining 1 through 4, it was not an independent evaluation.

Also, I also watch the solar weather daily. I don't see the same patterns that you claim. I don't see anyone making simple graphs to prove it.

That said, on a more positive note, a couple of Don's predictions were interesting (the 4.9 south of the Bay area last year was a miss on magnitude and location, but a hit on revised date, and seemed significant, and his recent prediction seemed a hit. The numerous M2-3 quake predictions I can not judge myself, but a few global predictions for larger events seemed to be misses (???).

Anyway, I do think that Lowell has good ideas and that there is something to some of them, and that is why I watch and post on this board. Chris