Is Belief in "Chemtrails" Growing?

Dan Page

Senior Member.
After years of "bringing awareness of chemtrails to the masses", Dane Wigington and others seem to be having an effect, and not in a good way. People that previously could have cared less about contrails in the sky are now:
1. Concerned about their health and of their loved ones.
2. Afraid to go outside on days with numerous contrails visible.
3. Obsessing about taking pictures and videos and posting them daily, sometimes hourly on social media.
4. More distrustful of government, weather people, and really, anybody who doesn't SEE the "chemtrails".
5. Families literally being torn apart because some believe and others don't.
6. Seeing signs going up on highways, telling people to "look up", and telling them to go to certain websites.
7. Once some of these people start to believe, it seems nearly impossible to convince them that it's all a hoax.
8. Blaming nearly everything they see in the sky, on geoengineering, from drought, to floods, to hurricanes, to strange looking clouds, or even normal clouds, to rainbows, even spider webs on the ground.
9. Blaming every physical malady they have on "chemtrails".

Mick, this site and your other one contrailscience.com are really great for people who don't really believe in the "chemtrail" nonsense, or are on the fence about it. However it's my feeling that we are loosing the battle so to speak, the "chemtrail" believers seem more resistant than ever to any information that challenges their beliefs.
Did you, in 2011, when you started this site, ever think that these "chemtrail" activists would become so strong and numerous? It feels like a snowball rolling down a mountain and getting bigger and bigger. It just boggles my mind, at how resistant they are. A few weeks ago I challenged a chemtrail believer on facebook, he was saying that it doesn't matter HOW they are doing it (geoengineering), just that THEY ARE! He is so convinced that it's happening that he doesn't care how, where, what, who, or why. I just said, seriously, you don't care how or why, you just believe? After that he basically told me to f off, calling me a dunce.
To me, this movement is just getting bigger, more complicated, and seems almost impossible to convince the believers that it's all bunk, and a grand hoax.
Feeling pretty hopeless about the whole thing at the moment, and just sad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
It feels like a snowball rolling down a mountain and getting bigger and bigger
considering david keiths big push with his "lets spray the sky with sulpheric acid" book and Kylie Jenner tweeting about chemtrails (which are the big spikes on both images "B" on first and "C" on second.. i dont know what happened in October 2014ish for the biggest spike) AND the epa holding real meetings about it with the public (Redding was it?) AND the billboards...its not really getting bigger and bigger so much. you probably just notice it more because you are paying attention to it.


trends.PNG


if you take out the oct 2014ish spike above, this year seems to be ending the same as it began basically.

tr2.PNG
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
However it's my feeling that we are loosing the battle so to speak, the "chemtrail" believers seem more resistant than ever to any information that challenges their beliefs.
Did you, in 2011, when you started this site, ever think that these "chemtrail" activists would become so strong and numerous? It feels like a snowball rolling down a mountain and getting bigger and bigger.

It can feel like that, but I don't think it really is the case. It's the same "observation bias" that makes chemtrail believers suddenly notice contrails everywhere. Once you delve into the world of chemtrail believers, they seem to be numerous and vocal, but most people in the real world to whom I have mentioned the chemtrail theory have never even heard of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NoParty

Senior Member.
After years of "bringing awareness of chemtrails to the masses", Dane and others seem to be having an effect, and not in a good way. People that previously could have cared less about contrails in the sky are now:
1. Concerned about their health and of their loved ones.
2. Afraid to go outside on days with numerous contrails visible.
3. Obsessing about taking pictures and videos and posting them daily, sometimes hourly on social media.
4. More distrustful of government, weather people, and really, anybody who doesn't SEE the "chemtrails".
5. Families literally being torn apart because some believe and others don't.
6. Seeing signs going up on highways, telling people to "look up", and telling them to go to certain websites.
7. Once some of these people start to believe, it seems nearly impossible to convince them that it's all a hoax.
8. Blaming nearly everything they see in the sky, on geoengineering, from drought, to floods, to hurricanes, to strange looking clouds, or even normal clouds, to rainbows, even spider webs on the ground.
9. Blaming every physical malady they have on "chemtrails".

Mick, this site and your other one contrailscience.com are really great for people who don't really believe in the "chemtrail" nonsense, or are on the fence about it. However it's my feeling that we are loosing the battle so to speak, the "chemtrail" believers seem more resistant than ever to any information that challenges their beliefs.
Did you, in 2011, when you started this site, ever think that these "chemtrail" activists would become so strong and numerous? It feels like a snowball rolling down a mountain and getting bigger and bigger. It just boggles my mind, at how resistant they are. A few weeks ago I challenged a chemmie on facebook, he was saying that it doesn't matter HOW they are doing it (geoengineering), just that THEY ARE! He is so convinced that it's happening that he doesn't care how, where, what, who, or why. I just said, seriously, you don't care how or why, you just believe? After that he basically told me to f off, calling me a dunce.
To me, this movement is just getting bigger, more complicated, and seems almost impossible to convince the believers that it's all bunk, and a grand hoax.
Feeling pretty hopeless about the whole thing at the moment, and just sad.
I too feel this way sometimes...but when I step back and assess more cerebrally, I don't see a snowball.

Yes, with a huge push, they can get a nice turnout, like August in Redding
(but even that "success" was an empty pep rally: no significant new alleged "proof of chemtrails")

But overall, I think that many of the most committed "chemtrailers" are beginning to realize that society
just does not find their claims persuasive...I sense some frustration...even some doubt.
And the tiny gatherings--at many demonstrations--tells me that no, this is no juggernaut.
Sure, some new people will always discover it, and fall for it...but I think others get tired of being
a marginalized, ridiculed, tiny little cult...whose oft-promised big "breakthrough" never seems to arrive.
 
Last edited:

skephu

Senior Member.
Dane's audience definitely grows as judged by the number of comments his articles get on his website or Facebook page.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
It's a relatively new Facebook page.
Yes, his "Dane Wigington" page was started in 2014. But his "Geoengineeering Watch" page was started in 2006, and has been active since 2012. It had about 14,000 likes in July this year and now it has about 20,000 likes.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I choose not to do social media (hell, MetaBunk is probably the closest I get to SM)...
so maybe I don't have proper appreciation of "Likes." Maybe they are more meaningful than it seems to me.

But I'm thinking of vids I've seen of promoted demonstrations that were supposed to show the strength
of the "chemtrail" movement...that looked like a science-challenged zealot using an (unnecessary) bullhorn
to shout past 7 or 8 sad die-hards. They always claim huge growth in believers...but...that should've compounded into much larger enthusiastic crowds, in my view...if it were true...

I was surprised that they could get as much interest as they did in Redding, in August...
but it seems like the exception, to me...and that no new info was presented that will bring new converts...so it seemed more like "See? We still exist and are trying" than a step forward...
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, his "Dane Wigington" page was started in 2014. But his "Geoengineeering Watch" page was started in 2006, and has been active since 2012. It had about 14,000 likes in July this year and now it has about 20,000 likes.

It had 8,500 likes in November 2014.
https://archive.is/https://www.facebook.com/geoengineeringwatch.org*

I think the "Start Date" of 2006 is the start of the geoengineeringwatch.org web site, not the Facebook page. It's a "milestone", manually entered into the page:


"Likes" tend to grow in a way that is not always indicative of a growth in traffic - if you have traffic, then you get a steady increase in likes, but it's kind of a static count. Looking at actual traffic, there does not seem to be a long term trend over the last six months:
http://www.similarweb.com/website/geoengineeringwatch.org#overview


If anything you could say it trended down over the summer (when there are fewer contrails).
 

skephu

Senior Member.
Is it "traffic" that we should be looking at? Facebook likes directly reflect the number of people actively interested/convinced. I think that's the more relevant number. "Traffic" includes people who just took a look and were not interested.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
His facebook page had about 16,000 likes in March and it has 27,000 likes now.

And when I first came across Chemtrails Global Skywatch there was a handful of members, now there are over 45,000. However it is a revolving door or characters for the most part. I many of the members are lurking, like I am, and a good number are just gone because they don't "believe" anymore, or it was a passing fancy.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Is it "traffic" that we should be looking at? Facebook likes directly reflect the number of people actively interested/convinced. I think that's the more relevant number. "Traffic" includes people who just took a look and were not interested.

I "like" pages all over the place and have not much interest in the pages, but at one time the page posted something I was interested in. I don't think "likes" mean much.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Yeah, I suspect both figures include a lot of people who hear about it, get a little tingly,
vist and/or "Like," and then lose motivation and just kind of drift off...

back to the Kardashian saga or the "Denver Airport Is The Home Of All Evil" theory
 

skephu

Senior Member.
I "like" pages all over the place and have not much interest in the pages, but at one time the page posted something I was interested in. I don't think "likes" mean much.
But to "like" at least you have to be sympathetic to the issue. I visit the GEW site often, so I generate traffic, but I would never "like" the page.
Also, the number of comments is telling. So I think Dane's fan community is definitely growing at a fast pace.
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
But to "like" at least you have to be sympathetic to the issue. I visit the GEW site often, so I generate traffic, but I would never "like" the page.
Also, the number of comments is telling. So I think Dane's fan community is definitely growing at a fast pace.
I think there is a risk in overstating the importance of FB "likes".

As an example, there's a far-right nationalist group in the UK that use a tactic of making pretty innocuous posts, things against animal cruelty, support for servicemen, support for football teams etc. These posts are designed to get shared and gain likes from people who don't necessarily share their extreme views. Who doesn't think cruelty against cute puppies is wrong? Often if you point out to people who exactly is behind the post they've just shared, they're quite shocked.

The group has over a million page likes, but in the Euro elections last year they got about 20k votes, and their meetings and marches usually struggle to get into three figures.

Clicking "Like" on a page requires little effort, and since FB is global and huge, there's a big pool of potential clickers.

I often wonder how many likes CT pages get from people who see shared posts and think they're simply comments on general environmental issues. Ian Simpson's page has about 8k likes, but tiny numbers of shares and "currently talking" stats, which he believes is because FB censors him.

Ray Von
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
@Mick West, can you make out a trend in Twitter regarding 'chemtrails' or #chemtrails? Do you think it's a better indicator than FB Likes?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
@Mick West, can you make out a trend in Twitter 'chemtrails' or #chemtrails? Do you think it's a better indicator than FB Likes?
re my google trends above: thanks! kismet. tried to look it up and an old metabunk link popped up... so my spike above next to "kylie jenner" was actually feb/april 2014 (not oct sorry) and Mick says it was the burning snow thing.

https://www.metabunk.org/how-alive-is-the-topic-of-chemtrails-nowadays.t4967/#post-132795

cc.PNG


add: oh thats not good. chemtrails are less popular than sandy hook. granted, as you can see from pre shooting, there are a few locals called Sandy Hook (NJ) where people probably look up maps etc. but overall chemtrails isnt looking super popular.

gsh.PNG
 
Last edited:

Henk001

Senior Member.
re my google trends above: thanks! kismet. tried to look it up and an old metabunk link popped up... so my spike above next to "kylie jenner" was actually feb/april 2014 (not oct sorry) and Mick says it was the burning snow thing.

https://www.metabunk.org/how-alive-is-the-topic-of-chemtrails-nowadays.t4967/#post-132795

View attachment 16542


add: oh thats not good. chemtrails are less popular than sandy hook. granted, as you can see from pre shooting, there are a few locals called Sandy Hook (NJ) where people probably look up maps etc. but overall chemtrails isnt looking super popular.

View attachment 16543
what is this periodic thing with mayonnaise?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Don't kid yourself it isn't growing. A ton of effort is being put out and it gets results over time. Since the inception 19 years ago millions have seen and millions have rejected, yet a cumulative buzz effect does exist. The laundry list approach along with the reticence of the leadership to openly face questioning makes them appear unassailable thus they are effectively unreachable in public discourse. They are inculcated into using convenient assertions that those arguing against them do so actively on orders. The believers target so many, especially the gullible most like them, that this all culminates in a general increase which is feeding on itself. Few who leave are willing to denounce out of shame and may still hold on quietly for the same reason making them ripe for re-indoctrination.

They also target influential people perhaps honestly seeking support or confirmation. In today's Guardian, George Monbiot takes them to task after watching it through the years. He mentions:

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ust-garbage-its-letting-aviation-off-the-hook

Monbiot has long been an advocate for reduction in airline emissions and quite rightly points out many of the issues we see constantly. You can be sure that the counter to this will be a self-serving yet contorted message of confirmation rather than a rational refutation. As Monbiot closes he mentions reasons why conspiracy thinking is popular:

This something understood, at least "deep in the forebrain" by the likes of Russ Tanner:

 
Last edited:

MikeG

Senior Member.
Monbiot has long been an advocate for reduction in airline emissions and quite rightly points out many of the issues we see constantly. You can be sure that the counter to this will be a self-serving yet contorted message of confirmation rather than a rational refutation. As Monbiot closes he mentions reasons why conspiracy thinking is popular:


This was just outstanding.

I am teaching a course on conspiracies and history next semester and will use this article.

Thank you Jay.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
But to "like" at least you have to be sympathetic to the issue. I visit the GEW site often, so I generate traffic, but I would never "like" the page.
Also, the number of comments is telling. So I think Dane's fan community is definitely growing at a fast pace.

Oh I would definitely "like" a page I did not disagree with. Especially if I could get hilarious screen shots for some of the "...Say the Darndest Things" FB pages I admin.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Don't kid yourself it isn't growing. A ton of effort is being put out and it gets results over time. Since the inception 19 years ago millions have seen and millions have rejected, yet a cumulative buzz effect does exist.

Agree. I have been following Chemtrails Global Skywatch. There is a continual parade of "I just heard about chemtrails...." "My friend added me to this group...." "I believe chemtrails are real but I have a question, if they're spraying everyone etc etc etc " <<----This last one usually is called a troll and removed from the group. But there is a continual parade of new members that post for about one day and I never see them again. Now I don't keep a list of who posts and how many they make, but I do recognize the posters who have been there for a length of time, and even they seem to fall off sooner or later. Chemtrails is a revolving door conspiracy theory.

Edit: fixed formatting
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
Is it "traffic" that we should be looking at? Facebook likes directly reflect the number of people actively interested/convinced. I think that's the more relevant number. "Traffic" includes people who just took a look and were not interested.
Not necessarily cos some people will "LIKE" the page, when they see the post that is more innnocuous but a lot of people are too lazy to go round unliking pages when they lose interest.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
@Mick West, can you make out a trend in Twitter regarding 'chemtrails' or #chemtrails? Do you think it's a better indicator than FB Likes?

I can't find a free way of measuring this, there's https://www.hashtags.org/analytics/chemtrails/ but it only does 24 hours for free.

Anecdotally, I think there has been an increase in chemtrail related tweets over the last year. There's also seemingly been an increase in people using the term ironically - which shows a more general public awareness of the theory.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Yes, I've already heard a few people--real-life, not on-line--say things like:



"I don't mean like 'chemtrails' (with little finger air quote gesture)" Screen Shot 2015-12-04 at 8.47.57 AM.png

to indicate that what they are talking about, they don't believe to be a pseudo-real, trendy fiction.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I can't find a free way of measuring this, there's https://www.hashtags.org/analytics/chemtrails/ but it only does 24 hours for free.

Anecdotally, I think there has been an increase in chemtrail related tweets over the last year. There's also seemingly been an increase in people using the term ironically - which shows a more general public awareness of the theory.

I've seen the hashtag chemtrails used many times by people who do not believe it.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Yes, I've already heard a few people--real-life, not on-line--say things like:



"I don't mean like 'chemtrails' (with little finger air quote gesture)" View attachment 16551

to indicate that what they are talking about, they don't believe to be a pseudo-real, trendy fiction.
when i asked my mother if she had heard of chemtrails, she said 'yes'. i was shocked and said "you HAVE?!". She said, "yea theyre the lines behind planes". I said "you think the planes are spraying chemicals?" She said "theyre not chemicals, its just what happens when planes fly" i said you mean "Contrails?". she said "oh is that what theyre called? yea contrails"

so now i wonder how many people see a picture of contrails with "chemtrails" labeled and even have any clue the implication is they are not just regular exhaust contrails.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
when i asked my mother if she had heard of chemtrails, she said 'yes'. i was shocked and said "you HAVE?!". She said, "yea theyre the lines behind planes". I said "you think the planes are spraying chemicals?" She said "theyre not chemicals, its just what happens when planes fly" i said you mean "Contrails?". she said "oh is that what theyre called? yea contrails"

so now i wonder how many people see a picture of contrails with "chemtrails" labeled and even have any clue the implication is they are not just regular exhaust contrails.
Yes, I expect we'll see more of that.

Since the average person rarely encounters the word 'contrails,' I think many people these
days will hear (or see) 'chemtrails' and just figure that that's what contrails are called. :confused:
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
I blame the Turkish. Any time you go to any kebab shop in the UK and say "just a tiny bit of mayonnaise,"they absolutely DROWN it in the stuff. no sense of moderation , some people.



Makes a nice welcome change from blaming Israelis for everything.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
what is this periodic thing with mayonnaise?

It's due to Cinco de Mayo, the American Mexican celebration.

No, it really is! Searches including the word "Mayo" peak on May 5, and Mayonnaise matches these peaks. Every year thousands of Americans wonder why Mexico celebrate Mayonnaise, so they look it up.


But it goes to show how you can't take simple keyword searched on face value. For example, if there was a popular Band that decided to release an album called "Chemtrails" or mention during an interview, then that would skew the searches, but not necessarily reflect an increase in belief.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
No, it really is! Searches including the word "Mayo" peak on May 5, and Mayonnaise matches these peaks. Every year thousands of Americans wonder why Mexico celebrate Mayonnaise, so they look it up.

Surely the more plausible explanation is that Google lumps in searches for "mayo" with "mayonnaise", not that people are actually searching for mayonnaise.

Have you noticed how when you search for a word, Google often throws in related words bolded up in the results as if you had searched for them instead?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Surely the more plausible explanation is that Google lumps in searches for "mayo" with "mayonnaise", not that people are actually searching for mayonnaise.

Have you noticed how when you search for a word, Google often throws in related words bolded up in the results as if you had searched for them instead?
maybe but when you type in mayonnaise in the "google trends" it gives you options like "mayo clinic" etc. i chose "condiment" ..but yea they might throw mayo in too. i thought it was a safe thing noone would search for lol. i should have gone with "toenail" - which btw shows the same increase over time as "chemtrails"...which may reflect just more 'internet usage' over the years.

but chemtrails ARE more popular than "washer hoses", "pippylongstocking" and "john galt".
 

skephu

Senior Member.
The question is whether belief in chemtrails is growing, not whether more people search for the word.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
N Is Belief in Chemtrails a Bad Thing? Contrails and Chemtrails 121
Mick West The Epistemology of UFOs - No Longer a Matter of Belief? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 15
Mick West Do Polls and Google Trends show Chemtrail Belief Declining? Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Wiggles I could have spiralled into flat earth belief. Escaping The Rabbit Hole 36
David Fraser Legal implications of conspiracy belief. General Discussion 2
JFDee "Escaping the Prison of Belief" - Science as a Remedy, by Ex-Scientologist General Discussion 2
SeanDWalker gauging belief in conspiracy General Discussion 0
Dan Wilson Debunked: Bruce Lipton and The Biology of Belief Health and Quackery 216
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #11: Jim Lee – Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Conspiracies, and Semantics Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Trailblazer Explained: video of concentric circular "chemtrails" (E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, Feb 1 2019) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Ben Geddy Happy to have found this site and Mick thru JRE! Practical Debunking 4
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
FlightMuj Claims of Predictions of Chemtrails in Old Texts Contrails and Chemtrails 3
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Chemtrails and the Anti-Vaccine Movement Contrails and Chemtrails 34
MikeG Debunked: Air Force Verifies Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Banff Chemtrails Billboard Worries David Keith Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Quantifying Expert Consensus Against Covert Geoengineering / Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 116
skephu Debunked: Dutch Government Admit Chemtrails Exist Contrails and Chemtrails 7
mrfintoil Debunked: CIA Director admits chemtrails, geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection Contrails and Chemtrails 24
C Strange Flickering in Contrail Video Posted in Earlier Thread [Focussing artifacts] Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Trailblazer Russ Tanner accidentally debunks chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Demythologizing Prince's reference to "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 5
ParanoidSkeptic Chemtrails: Experiments on the Public Contrails and Chemtrails 5
MikeC New Zealand Ministry of Environment reply to "chemtrail" query Contrails and Chemtrails 6
F Explained: Video of plane leaving "6 chemtrails, then 2" [Mixed Exhaust and Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Debunked: Article: "Court Takes Child From Mother After She Mentions Chemtrails At School" Contrails and Chemtrails 92
skephu Chuck Norris on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Vice: 'It Was Like a Cult': Leaving the World of Online Conspiracy Theories Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
skephu Paul Beckwith (climate scientist) on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 19
JFDee Debunked: Lichens and Moss on Trees Caused by Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Sausalito Spectral analysis of alleged "chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Safya Yassin, Missouri ISIS supporter and chemtrails believer arrested for threats Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Trailblazer Chemtrail response from Swiss Federal Office of the Environment Contrails and Chemtrails 3
MikeG Climate Change War Games Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Persistent Trails Survey Shows Chemtrail Believers Only Recently Noticed Persistent Trails Contrails and Chemtrails 32
Dan Page idea: a "Debunked" Stamp Practical Debunking 9
Z 3 military helicopters Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Mick West Debunked: AnonSec's NASA Hack, Global Hawk Hijack, Evidence of Chemtrails [Public Domain Data] General Discussion 32
MikeG Giant Snowflakes [Rimed Dendrites] Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Balance Blatant photoshop deceit of BP refueling tank Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Dan Page Claim: Mobile app uses atmospheric data to prove chemtrails vs contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 12
MikeG Futurism and Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 4
MikeG Accidental Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 7
MikeG Debunked: HAARP Caught in Action Contrails and Chemtrails 28
Ray Von Geezer Ian Simpson / Look-up.org.uk debunks chemtrails & geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 13
skephu Parallel lines of clouds (Virginia Beach) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Ray Von Geezer George Monbiot in the Guardian on "Chemtrails" & Look-up.org.uk Contrails and Chemtrails 26
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top