To my mind the more interesting thing about Dennis's predictions were that he was using a method that is reproducible. Someone else invented it and he reproduced it, and it could have been tried more widely if the inventor had agreed.

Science works on the basis of reproducibility, and so a method based on picking up signals using an instrument that anyone could build is much more interesting than picking up signals that manifest as one person's earache, or nightmares or what-have-you. Whatever Dennis has been picking up has undoubtedly been real; the question is whether it really had anything to do with earthquakes, or was actually variations in magnetic declination, or electrical interference, or some other secular signal. Which is why (as I have tried to argue) any evaluation really depends on the data and not on Dennis's interpretation of the data (which is really all we ever got).

However, whether Dennis responds to your appeal depends on whether he is lurking, which he may not be. (Hint: try email)