Does the Cape Fear geology really tell us anything about the Bledsoe reports?

Geology can be a useful place to start an investigation, but the claim needs specifics. Which mapped fault or rift feature is being discussed, how close is it to the reported location, and what measured electromagnetic effect is supposed to matter? Without those details, saying two things share a geological setting is a pattern to examine, not evidence that one explains the other.

I’d separate the reported experience from the proposed mechanism. Even if the reports are well documented, that does not establish that local geology caused them. You would want reliable location and timing information, independent geological mapping, and measurements taken under relevant conditions. Otherwise the article may be connecting broad categories after the fact.

The strongest version of this argument would make a prediction that can be checked, rather than just pointing to a place where something unusual was reported. For example, it would specify what signal should be detectable, where and when, and how ordinary sources would be ruled out. If the idea cannot be tested that way, it stays speculative.

Also worth checking whether the cited features are unusual at the scale being claimed. Faults and other geological structures occur in many places, so a few striking examples do not show that facilities or sightings are concentrated on them. You’d need a clear comparison with locations where no such reports or facilities exist.