the inconvenience to EE of subduction observed in the real world and expansion not so observed

It's too bad for the expanding earth fraud-science
that it depends so heavily on data whose exact
opposite is what is found.

The ability to measure Earth's radius and
circumference directly, that fails to find any of
the expansion EE proponents claim has been a feature
of the last 200,000,000 years should suffice to
debunk EE, but EE proponents, dishonest to a
(non-)sophant, wave hands vigorously to shoo away
the inconvenient GPS, VLBI, laser geodesy, and other
EE-debunking data.

So consider subduction, which EE proponents insist
is in direct disagreement with EE. It is too bad
that subduction is so widely, directly observed,
say, here, where subducting plates are seen going
600 km deep, quite a contrast to EE claims that only
"overthrusting" [whatever in hell that means, since
if it were real without subduction it would stack
one entire lithosphere-depth of rock atop another,
making land rise completely out of the atmosphere]
is happening:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989GeoRL..16.1093V

More than that, it isn't exactly a secret that
subduction is extremely well studied by direct means
as opposed to mere inferential means. Google Scholar
for example finds

:- Results ... about 5,940 for subduction tomography

using

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=subduction+tomography

and tomography is a direct means of observing
subducted plates.

What can one say to the EE fraud-science promoters?

"Eat dirt and die" seems entirely appropriate.

xanthian.

.