ChatGPT reeeeeees at forum users (and lolcows sometimes).

[WelperHelper99]

No Solid Evidence Relinquish Died:

You couldn't even write this without Chat GPT to condense your thoughts. Sad.

 

[CatWithCigar]

bro did you ask chatgpt to write you an essay about this shit lmao come on...

Nope. I wrote it myself. Either way, there is no solid confirmation he died.

 

[Markass the Worst]

No Solid Evidence Relinquish Died:

Nigger, Byuu died with a story of him hanging himself to a gay French song on a Telegram call with somebody who did absolutely nothing about it (which turned out to be true). I can believe Relinquish decided to just off himself.

 

[ttd]

Nope. I wrote it myself. Either way, there is no solid confirmation he died.

damn nigga so you managed to write an entire paragraph that didn't say anything worthwhile without even having to use ai... brutal

 

[CallmeCicada]

In the case of @BrunoMattei , there is a deceased tag and in @Relinquish's case, there is no deceased tag just "dead."This means @Relinquish could have inputted this himself.

If that's how it works I guess jannies have the Death Note. Which in that case I nominate you be given a deceased tag so you can stfu already.

 

[CatWithCigar]

Spoiler: Editor's Note

Turkey Tom allegation analysis deconstruction. Why am I doing this, and why is it necessary? Enemies of the Farms are attempting to discredit it by using posts, either their own via burner accounts or those made by rogue users, to claim that nothing on the Farms is credible or in some cases the Farms being tested on if they can discern misinformation and obvious bait. The goal of this post is not only to demonstrate that the Farms is capable of policing itself, but also to properly verify what is true and what is not.

Analyzing Left4Dead and Sacramento89's Posts Part 1:

Two accounts I want to highlight are @left4dead and @sacramento89.


Both of these accounts made a series of allegations against Tom, who operates several channels including @TurkeyTom and @TomDark. While most have been seemingly supportive of the two, no one has actually properly dug into all claims made by these accounts and de-constructed them.


On Page-64 (archive here), @sacramento89 made a post alleging that she and Tom had dated after meeting on Tinder and how KiwiFarms was always his number one searched Safari thing that pops up on iPhone and this is how she found the website and she would message Null to get a code to make posts. From here, @sacramento89 claims that she started to get really suspicious about all the e-girls he followed or interacted with and that Tom suspicious raged at her and lied to her about the fact he does Youtube. The issue with this testimony is that it comes from Tom’s ex-partner, who may have a significant bias, and she fails to provide sufficient evidence in this part of her statement to support her claims. Furthermore, @sacramento89 alleged that Tom quote "did some crazy shit like kicked holes in a wall at a house he was renting cause some egirl who copies belle delphine got hacked and the “hacker” was blackmailing him with his dickpics. He continued to talk with her after the fact." The user @sacramento89 provided screenshots and a photo of her and Tom.



However, this still does not constitute solid proof. While the screenshots could be real, it would still be insufficient as evidence.

Spoiler: Text Messages [Full]

Spoiler: Conversation Part 1

Tom: Every thing good.


Her: Idk I'll explain later.


Tom: It has nothing to do with you.


Her: Oh Shit


Her: Scale of 1:10 how bac


Her: Bad.


Tom: Very


Her: Im so sorry.


Tom: An ex of mine got hacked basically


Tom: And some stuff is going to be dropped On Line.


Tom: Photos.


Tom: They emailed my family


Her: Oh


Her: Bruh


Her: It's ok


Tom: Is it?

Her: I have no idea this haz never happened to me.

Spoiler: Conversation Part 2

Tom: Yeah


Her: lol


Tom: Thats the one.


Her: yeahhhhhhh


Tom: Do you think my 'type' is bell delphine Imao


Her: no like emo huzz


Her: Of that nature


Tom: I would preter u just dress normal tbh


Tom: i dont wanna be with Them anymore


Tom: its better this way


Her: Yeah.


Tom: This shit kinda does make me wanna an hero a little bit


Tom: But it's fine


Tom: I must count my blessings,


Her: What does that mean?


Tom: Kill myself.


Tom: Not really but like damn this is stressful and gay.

How can we verify these messages are real? For the iMessage ones, we have no proper authentication as of now. Regardless of if these are real, these messages do not make Tom look bad. Why? Because these messages simply show Tom having a private moment, venting about the fact that his other ex-girlfriend was hacked, that his family was emailed, and that private photos were being threatened with a leak. It shows that Tom and his other ex were the victims of a malicious party. The second screenshot is also worth analyzing, as it similarly lacks context and fails to cast Tom in a negative light.

It should also be noted that when Tom said, "I'm glad u don't do that anymore lol," @sacramento89 had left additional context of showing the other messages above. This calls one thing into question: what was the additional context that @sacramento89 intentionally left out?

In the full conversation, Tom asked @sacramento89 if she thought Belle Delphine was his "type." When she disagreed, suggesting his type was more "emo huzz", Tom simply responded that he wished @sacramento89 dressed more normally. Tom added that quote "Tom: i dont wanna be with Them anymore. It's better this way." Why does this quote matter? In @sacramento89's own kiwi post, she introduced herself as dating Tom for a few months after meeting him on Tinder and used these screenshots shown to affirm that yet in the conversation, Tom is venting to @sacramento89 about not wanting to be with someone else.


While speculative, this suggests, if we assume these messages are real, that Tom's previous relationship was failing. It appears he and @sacramento89 were talking, and he was venting to her about his situation. The trust he placed in her was ultimately violated when she chose to air his dirty laundry publicly. However, even with this information exposed, it fails to make Tom look bad; instead, it makes @sacramento89 appear vindictive for weaponizing private information Tom shared in confidence at a pretty low point in his life.

One of the more serious allegations @sacramento89 made, without providing evidence. is that Tom recorded intimate encounters without consent and flew several women out to meet him. These claims are entirely without basis; if they were true, it raises the question of why she has not reported them to the authorities. Moreover, @sacramento89 says Tom has a file on his computer called just in case that quote "thats basically voice memos or calls from his exes to blackmail them with in case they ever say something about him. Thought I would get the message out and confirm yalls suspicions, also if this gets out to warn other young women in the Texas area about this dude."

Similar to the other claims, no proof has been provided. Instead, we are relying solely on @sacramento89's testimony without questioning it. If Tom had recorded calls or blackmail material regarding his exes, why have no other victims come forward or reported it to law enforcement? What matters here is evidence. Where is the evidence that Tom had recorded calls or blackmail material?

In a second post, the @sacramento89 account promised that the allegations are real, claiming she is a 'normal person' who is scared of him coming after her and has a 'just-in-case' file. Again, the account provides no proof for this; it makes very charged claims based on little evidence and out-of-context screenshots. This situation differs significantly from, for example, a Discord server with 500,000 verified messages from a general channel and additional staff logs. While that scenario offers receipts, the case against Tom provides little to no evidence.

Furthermore, @sacramento89 says, "I am not alleging anything illegal or saying it was revenge porn or anything, what i meant was he wouldn't ask before and proceed take his phone out mid sexual activity to film I sometimes wouldnt notice till like 15-30 seconds after he started filming. I have no idea if this is illegal or not but yeah he wouldnt ask before. reached out to an ex gf of his, he would do the same thing to her. the blackmail he has on his computer is phone calls and texts i believe, most of them are from his ex girlfriend named Kai. Here is a picture from when we matched on tinder, dont have the messages from when we matched anymore." What is the problem with her statement here? The user @sacramento89 claimed that Tom would film her and himself mid-sexual activity, and she said she would not notice until like 15–30 seconds. She provides no proof of this claim, so there is no way of determining if this is true. What we are relying on is second-hand testimony where @sacramento89 has shown she unsent a message, has not shown context to conversations, and has not provided any proof of her claims. The situation gets worse when the ex, who claims to want to expose this behavior, name-drops Kai and drags a party who did not consent to be involved or be name dropped. On Page-173 (access here), a Kiwi Farms user named @Chuck Shiesty had posted Kai's Google Doc, where Kai herself confirms that she did not want her personal situation or private matters generally to be blasted, and it was made public against either of their wishes.



Kai explains that regarding recording sexual encounters, for the few times her and Tom recorded anything quote "it was either with explicit permission beforehand or an established consent based on previous conversations in our long-term relationship. It really wasn’t a frequent thing that happened, mostly before we started living together and were long-distance. There are lot of stuff we did where I look back and shake my head because my standards for myself really have changed so much since then, but everything was always consensual between us. There were a few instances where I became uncomfortable with an encounter, and he was understanding and would not continue after I voiced discomfort."

Kai also clarifies that Tom was never rough or aggressive in the bedroom and that there was never domestic interactions and not only was he patient but he never yelled at Kai and she never once felt fearful of him. She also addresses rumors that Tom and her participated in ageplay, which originated from the streamer AidenUnderground, who would say in his Discord server how he was leaking Kai was into ageplay and how she liked to pretend to be a little girl during sex and did it with Tom.



This statement, well, is fucking insane, and shockingly, there is no pushback or questions on, "Hey, you claimed this happened; is there messages or logs that affirm this?" Otherwise, you're just gossiping baselessly.
In a call with Kuihman, Aiden talks about remembering a call, but again, was the call recorded?

Otherwise, if not, then there is no proof this happened.

Kai addressed this herself, saying how this was twisting the truth as she quoted: "Tom definitely romanticizes power dynamics and heavy dom/sub stuff, but that was never expressed through age-related dynamic roleplaying. It’s clear he has a type for Sanrio mentally ill egirls, but I just can’t say from my experience that it was ever pedophilic in nature."

Kai confirms the claim that Tom has a blackmail folder on her of phone recordings and text messages.

Youtubers specifically large-scale content creators due to being famous or having a large audience have heightened vigilance. Cases like the Slazo situation demonstrate why always carrying receipts becomes a necessity in protecting a creator. What Kai describes isn't inherently blackmail; it is a defensive measure against potential bad-faith actors. While this level of paranoia may seem foreign to the average person, it is a necessary reality for creators who can have their entire livelihood destroyed by a single unverified claim. Kai concludes this statement by saying quote "without this context, it looks worse than it is. I do not feel at all fearful about him leaking anything private relating to me in response to this because I think I’ve been very respectful, along with everything being the truth." Here is the rest of her statement.

Spoiler: Kai's Statement

Overall, Tom as a person is extremely flawed, and I’m disappointed to see he is still generally self-centred around sex as an act. Our relationship really fucked me up for a while, and certain things still affect me negatively from it. According to what some have said, it goes both ways. Most of the things that hurt me about our relationship don’t have much crossover with what other people have said about him, so I feel relieved that I can still maintain some privacy in a sense. We literally met as minors, and it’s still the longest relationship I’ve been in. You don’t date someone for 3+ years if you think they are an irredeemable piece of shit. I’ve never known him to be a person capable of these things, but everyone who has spoken about him has been after we broke up, so I just couldn’t know. As sad and angry as he’s made me feel i’ve never thought him to be heartless or sadistically cruel, just someone that has a lot of issues.

All I have is my own experience to use as my guide for what I think is true, but others shouldn’t take it as gospel above someone else’s testimony. I apologize for my brevity, as I only want to give pointed answers to avoid relaying intimate details about my sex life with an ex. I do not want to come across like I’m ‘exposing Turkey Tom’, I just felt morally inclined to share my experience about certain things since people have been wanting to specifically hear what I had to say. I don’t think there’s any need for follow-up, I’ve said everything I wish to comment on. I hope I can just go about my life without this constantly coming up because we’ve been broken up for so long now.

Overall, while things weren't the best in the relationship, what matters here is Kai clarified the situation and was indeed dragged into the situation and had her name dropped. So what about @sacramento89's statements and the other problems in it? A third problem is the other form of "evidence." @sacramento89 uses specifically a photo from when Tom and her matched on Tinder.

The problem here is that there is no proper way of authentication, so this screenshot could be faked; and even if this was real, it still is not evidence to back up the claims made. All this proves, on the assumption this is real, is that she and Tom matched on Snapchat. The user @sacramento89 went on to say, quote: 'The main reason I’m posting to this thread is to kind of warn people, mostly women, about this guy. The reason we broke up is actually because I mentioned this website to him and that I saw some crazy stuff about him online; his history with egirls bothered me. Pic is about the Belle Delphine type girl who was hacked. I’m suspicious of cheating because he did not block her after the fact and apparently she was still talking to him.' What is the problem with this statement? One issue is that, despite @sacramento89 saying she wanted to warn other people about Tom, mainly women, instead of actually showing evidence for her claims, and seemingly just throws whatever she can at the wall. She either shows screenshots that make Tom look good, or shows how he was a victim of someone who emailed his family as demonstrated here.

These messages may not be authentic, as we have no way to verify them; regardless, none of this paints Tom in a negative light. In fact, @sacramento89 herself states that she was suspicious of cheating because, as she put it, 'I’m suspicious of cheating because he did not block her after the fact and apparently she was still talking to him.' This could indicate that her reasoning behind this might be that of a vengeful ex. who was jealous of the Bella Dephine girl and assumed Tom was cheating. Using @sacramento89's 4th post, which we outlined here, she is clearly still bothered by the Bella Delphine girl and talked about how Tom was apparently still talking to her.

In this post, @sacramento89 attaches a screenshot as 'evidence.' What does this screenshot say?

Spoiler: Text Messages [Half]

Her: Is it like nudes or something?

Her: You can press charges.

Tom: A lot more.

Tom: I’ll be fine.

Tom: I mean, I could figure out who he is.

Tom: Yeah, it’s like seven pictures of me with my dick out.

Again this does not make Tom look bad at all. Someone had hacked an e-girl who he talked too prior and happened to send dick pics too and some hacker got access to it and threatened Tom with it. While there is no evidence this happened, what matters here is, regardless, Tom in this instance is a victim and this puts into question @sacramento89's motives. How is @sacramento89 protecting people by blasting out that Tom was a victim of some hacker who was threatening him with leaking his photos? It's not. Instead, it just seems like a vindictive ex leaking whatever dirty laundry she has and hiding behind a moral just cause. Either way, this is no confirmation that what is alleged to have transpired actually did. The user @sacramento89's final post on Page-64 is where she stated: "Like I said, he lied to me about who he was, but I figured it out pretty quickly, like on our first date, lol. He said it was 'weird' for a girl he’s dating to look at a gossip website and told me before that I should never look him up online (lol). The breakup was kind of mutual, but also I sort of crashed out on him about his past with the e-girls/the dick pic thing, so I understand it. He could probably use my mini crash-out during and right after our breakup against me, but everything I said was truthful. @sacramento89 tries to use the fact that Tom not telling her he is a YouTuber is a major red flag, but it is not.

Creators often have to be careful due to dealing with some insane, unhinged, parasocial fans or, in many cases, just want to separate what they do on YouTube vs. what they do in their private lives. As YouTube is a job, it's separating what you do professionally vs. what you do in your personal time. This is not a red-flag, it's basic due-diligence when it comes to being a popular content creator. The thing that also matters here is the fact that she says she found out pretty quickly who Tom was, and was browsing his Kiwi Farms thread. Two questions should be asked: 1) Did her finding this out incentivize her to collect information so that whenever she broke up with him, she'd use it? and 2) Does she have other Kiwi accounts? @sacramento89 admits that she crashed out on Tom over his past with egirls and the dick pic stuff. @sacramento89 herself stated prior that she was suspicious of cheating because, as she put it, 'I’m suspicious of cheating because he did not block her after the fact and apparently she was still talking to him.' While, again, we cannot affirm if these texts are real as of now or if what is being alleged by @sacramento89 even transpired, using the context of what the texts show and @sacramento89's own statements, it is clear that @sacramento89 seems to be a vindictive ex who is airing out Tom's messages because she was suspicious of Tom cheating on her with the Belle Delphine girl. This is not about warning people or protecting them. @sacramento89 is as outlined a vindictive ex. If these messages are real, it still shows Tom in a good light because he trusted someone in his lowest moments, and that someone is vindictive, leaking his low moments and spreading baseless claims. It ends up making him right in why he does not tell people he is a content creator, because of something like this which happened. @sacramento89 expresses worry about how Tom could use her mini 'crashout' during and right after their breakup.

Considering everything we tackled here, whether or not the messages or the events being described are real (likely bullshit), Tom would be justified to point out the fact that this girl is a vindictive ex and cite her crashout to demonstrate why it is the case. A user known as @Lanna asked if @sacramento89 had evidence that Tom had actually flown out girls he slept with.


@sacramento89 responded, saying, quote, “told me this, it was before our relationship (to my knowledge, not during). He was hella careful about texting stuff. But I reached out to one of his exes I knew he was with. She’s like an egirl type, and she confirmed. She has more evidence than I do, sent me pictures of her face being bruised after going to meet up with him."


What is the problem with this statement? The main issue at hand is that @sacramento89 provides no proof that Tom ever told her this and moreover she claims she reached out to one of the exes that she knew and has more evidence but in this post the evidence is not shown. And since we already know that @sacramento89 is vindictive, we do not know if there is a possibility that the other ex could also be vindictive and might be willing to lie just to harm Tom. @sacramento89 would respond to a Kiwi Farms user known as 'This User,' who accused her of being 37 years old, and addresses things saying, quote: 'told me this, it was before our relationship (to my knowledge not during) he was hella careful about texting stuff. but I reached out to one of his exes I knew he was with she’s like an egirl type and she confirmed. she has more evidence than I do, sent me pictures of her face being bruised after going to meet up with him.'




In this post, @sacramento89 attaches five screenshots as evidence.





To fully deconstruct each screenshot, we first have to look at the first one specifically, where we see that the other ex was at the San Francisco International Airport on March 15, 2024, with a small bruise on her face with the caption "Twin A Victim." Are these IG messages real? One of the people involved known as Kuzzo who is part of the project as well as hosting the website that outlines all of the current allegations made against Turkey Tom along with some Kiwis in the Media section made a channel called @SirKuzzo where he posted a video by Tom's other ex scrolling through IG DMs affirming that at least on the IG side of things that the messages are real.

What about the IG story? What if there was a way to verify that this IG story was not posted? There is.


The other ex's IG handle is @kloroxkatie, and her second highlight is titled (=^ェ^=).


In these highlights, there are more than three posts from March 2024.



The post after these three posts is from May 12, 2024.

Why does this matter? The screenshot that @sacramento89 shows is from March 15, 2024 and it is not present in the highlights.

This could mean one of two things: either this screenshot is faked and it never existed, or she deleted it. Either way, this screenshot does not prove that Tom abused her nor the validity of @sacramento89's claims. Anyone can take a screenshot of an IG story and, again, one screenshot does not prove or verify that @sacramento89 is telling the truth, when it is proven she has no proof for her claims and it is likely a lie. Unlike with something like verified 500k messages from a general Discord channel, along with archived staff channels where claims of purging and more do have receipts, in this case, there is only someone using out-of-context messages, being deceptive with the information presented, and proven to be a vindictive ex, and does not actually provide any solid proof to her claims. One scenario has strong receipts; this one does not. What do the rest of the screenshots show? Turkey Tom talked about getting kicked out of furry con and meeting up with the other ex who would be going to the San Francisco International Airport to fly out to Portland to meet Tom.


The user @sacramento89 said that after leaving his house and flying back home, the other ex had a big bruise.

While the image does show a bruise, we have no idea if the bruise is from something else or if there is more context here because we don't know if this injury could have been from something else or if it's photoshopped. The issue at hand is all we can do is speculate because we have no definitive proof of Tom causing this. Additionally, the context behind the texts of what @sacramento89 shows matters. What @sacramento89 shows is one example of Tom flying out to meet a girl, but this is not proof of multiple instances of him doing so. Even if he did fly out to meet people, there is no evidence he did anything wrong. Tom, in these text messages, looks out for the girl and wasn't worried about the flack on him, but more like her ending up on a Kiwi Farms page.

@sacramento89's other claim is that the Belle Delphine girl is actually someone who goes by the online alias @creepyhoarder, who has been posted on the thread before.

@sacramento89 stated this account was mentioned previously in the Kiwi Farms thread, but searching for the account mentions via the thread shows no results. The first mention (A1, A2) of @creepyhoarder handle that comes up on Kiwi Farms is her comment regarding the username, meaning she lied.

Moreover, a problem is that there is no proof or evidence that Tom or @creepyhoarder interacted with each other, know each other, or were in any relationship whatsoever. @sacramento89 said Tom "knew" this girl, yet we are relying on her statement when, again, her behavior indicates that she is a vindictive ex. Let's head to Page-66 (archive here).

Null engaged with the thread, affirming that quote: '@sacramento89 sent me two pictures of herself with Turkey Tom and of herself by herself with a note and a fashion accessory that matches the photos with TT.'

But once again, even if @sacramento89 is proven to be a real person, this does not make her claims true or have more validity. What we demonstrated is these claims lack any form of authentication and
derive from someone extremely vindictive who is lying about the circumstances. The user @sacramento89 talks about how Tom's Tinder profile is mostly just him flexing, and she also claimed, quote, "during sex he was very rough, would choke and hit me in the face. i dont think anyone he knew irl knew about this."

The user @KosherFarms.net asked "if that is where the other bruise came from."


@sacramento89 said yes and how Tom could hit pretty hard. The issue with these two statements by @sacramento89 are that given what we outlined prior, there is lack of evidence and since we already know that @sacramento89 does seem to be vindictive over the Bella Dephanine girl, without evidence, this is a broad claim and there needs to be evidence otherwise we are relying on an unreliable narrator who already has a pretty clear cut agenda based on a breakup. Another user, @Rache Bartmoss, remarked that the girl that @sacramento89 mentioned tried to cancel someone, aka Jet Neptune, for dating an 18-year-old contestant on Fishtank called Eleanor Moon.

What is the context here? On Page-4124 (archive here), the Kiwi user @Strong like Bruce Willis posted about text messages leaked by the other ex of Turkey Tom showed how Jet Neptune talked about wanting girls who can be kind of assistant helpers and makes our lives easier. Neptune also mentioned how Eleanor was 18 years old and asked if the ex wanted to be friends with her.

Neptune talked about importing girls and this is concerning but there is one thing to remember. Jet Neptune likes to pull ops on Kiwi Farms and if this did happen why is there no police investigation, why has Jet not been arrested yet. If these claims were legitimate and involved criminal behavior, why is there no police investigation? Why has Jet not been arrested or even formally questioned? It's fake.

We demonstrated some misinformation being spread on the Fishtank thread on Page-4284 (access here) which outlines some fakery.


On Page-67 (archive here), @sacramento89 claimed that Tom told her he was a porn addict but quit a couple of years ago and quoted, "replaced his porn addiction with filming other women during sex, because he was unable to ejaculate most of the time during sex but only through watching the videos he would take. As soon as I confronted him about what I had seen about him online, he wasn't able to maintain an erection and I think sex is just a huge ego thing for him."


This is not true because there is no evidence provided and we are relying on second-hand testimony, and that is not enough to qualify as evidence. Second-hand testimony and Discord logs, for instance, can be strong evidence, but in this case, there is no strong-hitting evidence. Just broad claims and no proof. @sacramento89 also clarified that she and Tom dated for seven months and she met his family, but again, we have no way of verifying that. This should be met with caution and not taken at face value unless actual proof is shown, which, so far, none has been provided.

On Page-68 (archive here), the Kiwi Farms user @jandle found all of the socials of the @creepyholder account and said, "Tom was done for."


Yet again, this account and Tom have never been proven to have interacted at all whatsoever. What this proves is the account exists. What this does not prove is Tom and this account ever interacting. The next page is Page-69 (archive here).

@sacramento89 alleged that, quote, "he would hit and choke because he was super gooner. sort of normalized it in my head but it’s definitely not okay to do that. all of the proof is in those videos he had; refused to send me or ignored the question when I asked. Katie told me that the picture of the bruise was due to injuries from sex." Like all of @sacramento89's prior statements, there is no proof. She claims all the proof is in the videos Tom has, yet seemingly wants to blast out this information with "evidence" of this happening, allowing for Tom to delete said "evidence." Then, she proceeds to name-drop people like Kai without their consent. This is not someone who is looking to protect others or warn them; this is just a vindictive ex. She also said quote "he was usually pretty pretty nice but sometimes would say stuff that made me question his intentions, would buy me a lot of stuff and take me to nice places, said he wanted to marry me and start a family but as soon as I started getting sus its like a switch flipped." This does not reflect badly on Tom. Instead, it shows him as a loving boyfriend who would try to make her feel loved, support her, and take her out to nice places and was in love; this girl seems just unhinged and was suspicious based on paranoia.

What is truthful, that does have evidence, is @sacramento89 mentioning how Kai cheated on Tom with Liam who currently goes by the online alias Liam Donovan.


Kai and Liam appeared in a livestream together and as @sacramento89 says it really upset Tom (rightfully) and he took it very personally.

What makes this stream a bit worse is knowing how Kai and Liam likely both knew Tom would see it, and it could have been meant to be a jab at him to hurt him. In Kai's own Google Doc, she confirms there was cheating but plays it off as both parties being guilty, but @sacramento89 seems to be indicating this might have been one-sided which means Kai cheated on Tom.

The public got to hear everyone speak for Tom's relationship but no one got to hear what Tom had to say. On Page-70 (archive here), @sacramento89 responded to a user who asked if he was very insecure or controlling of who she talked too because of Kai cheating on him and she said no and that Tom did not care if she went out to a bar or anything. This shows that, despite Tom having that negative experience with Kai, he always tried to treat @sacramento89 kindly and never constricted her, and always let her go out wherever she wanted and tried to make the best of the relationship, including taking her out to nice places and bought her a lot of stuff.



When @sacramento89 was asked how long she dated Tom, she stated, 'We dated from May 2025 till the beginning of this month. Katie and the ageplayer was in 2024.' As we have proven throughout this post, none of the things that @sacramento89 accused Tom of were proven with evidence; and, in many cases, it showed he was the good partner and she was the one assuming cheating was happening when it likely never did. This, I’d argue, makes her vindictive.

A third person asked if Tom would ever impose Kai's style onto her. @sacramento89 says, quote: 'No, he would actually tell me he liked that I look "normal" and he was done with the BPD types. I think one of the screenshots of our messages had him saying something like that.' This again shows that Tom was a good boyfriend because, as @sacramento89 highlights herself, Tom never imposed on her or tried to force a style on her. Tom, from what she has said prior, tried to go far and beyond and also extend to her own needs. If anyone is a victim in this, it's Tom, again, of a vindictive ex girlfriend. The situation only gets worst when this same vindictive ex is seemingly trying to lie about Tom and pedo-jacket him by saying quote " during one of our first dates he told me i looked like I was around 15, told katie the same thing." Outside of what @sacramento89 mentioned about Tom dating e-women, why the need to mention that unless you're trying to harm someone reputationally, and in this case, there is no evidence for her claims, which means she lied about Tom and is malicious. The interactions with kiwis continued on Page-71 (archive here).

A Kiwi known as @thhrang asked if Tom ever gossiped about Youtube friends behind their back and @sacramento89 clarified he did not and that Tom according to her claimed that a lot of Youtube people are fake and that he was on discord 24/7.


Moreover, @sacramento89 said, quote, "context was that I told him he looked older than his age; in response, he said I looked 15–16 because it's 'hard to tell' at the ages of 15–23," in reply to Harm asking her about the context behind her original statement where she is trying to harm Tom reputationally under the basis of a lie. This, similar to the prior statement, is likely a lie and did not transpire. One of the things that we would argue makes Tom the victim of @sacramento89 is when she shows texts of Tom being hurt and bleeding after sex.

Spoiler: Text Messages [Full]

Tom: like we. Dont need to do it 3 time in own day.


Tom:


Tom: or do it so hard i hurt and bleed


Her: well if u dont want to have as much sex we dont gotta


Her: we can do other things


Tom: ok !


Tom: I like doing other thing too

She talks about 'evidence,' but this makes her even worse; not only is she leaking very personal details about Tom where he is going through a really rough time and in pain, but she is leaking it for the world to sex, not to protect anyone, but just because she is, as we keep outlining time and time again, vindictive and lying about her real intentions. On Page-72 (archive here), @sacramento89 claimed that Tom would go on his phone or Discord after choking, hitting, or making her bleed, and that, quote, "I believe the bleeding was caused because he would basically just bend me over, choke me, and stick his dick into me, basically. Katie had the same story,"


This is completely baseless, and as we already established, @sacramento89 has been willing to spread claims without evidence, spread Tom's personal information maliciously, including some personal health problems, and has lied about Tom. This makes her an unreliable source, as the intent here is, as demonstrated, that of a vindictive ex who is willing to smear Tom to destroy him reputationally. A second vindictive ex appeared in the Turkey Tom Kiwi Farms thread known as @left4dead.

The user @left4dead was excited to make a new account and made more allegations against Tom, specifically, quote, "YES tom is extremely harsh during sex... I have been down the kink roads in my life, and how he acts is actually just evil and almost sadistic. not even kinked up, just actually a patrick bateman type gooner. 1st girl already posted some of my screenshots, but if anyone has questions or wants specific proof, ill try to see if i can answer."

As with @sacramento89, the user just accuses Tom of a multitude of things including being evil and sadistic and does not provide any evidence. The claims, similar to @sacramento89, lack evidence. On the next page, which is Page-73 (access archive), @sacramento89 claimed she was considering reaching out to law enforcement, and quote, "telling people about everything that went down and then i blocked him after listing out every single thing he did wrong (because i know he will send my texts to his lawyer)."

@sacramento89 never was able to prove that this interaction happened and even claimed, without basis, that Tom would send those texts to his lawyer. But we also have to remember how @sacramento89 is the malicious person who victimized Tom and not only has been weaponizing his information, but name-dropping people who did not want to be involved in the situation, trying to essentially pedo-jacket Tom, lied about him, and was willing to destroy his reputation, all for one reason: this is a vindictive, petty ex who had a loving boyfriend and then, after things ended, remained bitter. @left4dead also tries to pedo-jacket Tom by lying about him. How does she do this? @left4dead says, quote, "He also said how it was 'awesome i looked like a little girl' the first time we had sex. Told me he was excited to learn i had BPD (stfu) because girls with it 'love harder' lel so retarded."

Essentially, she lies about Tom stating how he claimed it was awesome she looked like a little girl the first time they had sex. Given how absurd and, quite honestly, retarded this sounds and with no proof, this claim is not only just a baseless lie but meant to essentially try to validify @sacramento89's weak claims without evidence and have a second-handed person relay those claims to seem more authenticated, when in actuality it's just fucking baseless.

It gets worse when @left4dead says she has crazy audio of Tom saying, quote, "he wants to night rape me, which for sure think he was saying tht as like negative rizz, but actually insane to use tht as rizz." By worst, I mean she misrepresents what actually transpired. Tom makes an off-handed joke about night rape, they laugh it off, and that's how deep it goes.

@left4dead would say, quote, "i just truly thought he was a cringe fag who def was gonna beat me later if i stayed around.. we only had a 2 month fling bc even my insane ass was scared of how he acted and he also was just stupid i hated conversation with him." The @left4dead account, through this statement, is proven to be malicious because the very first thing they say about Tom is that they think he was some cringe fag that was going to beat her up if she stayed around, and this shows that from the very start she did not have any favorable view of Tom and even thought of him as stupid and hated conversations she had with him. She appears rather vindictive. When @left4dead was asked if she had proof and what Tom had done, @left4dead again just made vague accusations with no evidence that he was extremely weird and evil during sex and said she had random audio recordings and every DM and text, yet seemingly in that very same post does not drop the evidence at hand that would validate her claims, which means she is likely lying.

Conclusion:

There are more claims to analyze, but for now we are on the verge of collapse from not sleeping the entire night. We will de-construct the other claims in depth.

 

[Avenue]

cahntext: this post was moved from the Turkey Tom thread and was in reply to the post above this one. The Tom thread was very active at this time due to allegations put forward by Tom's ex-gf(s)

---

Reserving this post to inform lurkers that user @CatWithCigar is known for posting novel length skitzoposts that twist kernels of truth into silmarillions of autism

 

[dick tha master]

Reserving this post to say that user @CatWithCigar is known for posting novel length skitzoposts that twist kernels of truth into silmarillions of autism

I respect their autism.

 

[Cheese Boob]

Reserving this post to inform lurkers that user @CatWithCigar is known for posting novel length skitzoposts that twist kernels of truth into silmarillions of autism

The fact he says there is "no proof" tom interacted with the Ellie (@creepyhoarder) age play girl when there is proof on the contrary is just idiotic. we have 4 photos of him with her in person and its very obvious shes the same person who owns those IG accounts.





EDIT: actually @jandle directed me towards something they had posted earlier in the thread. Tom did at one time FOLLOW Ellie (@creepyhoarder) on IG so he actually did interact directly with the account. He got called out for this years ago and he later unfollowed. So @CatWithCigar that part of your last post was was very poorly researched.

 

[Eadred]

@CatWithCigar stop your embarrassing ai posting please.
I don't think I've ever told someone to kill themselves, don't force my hand, thanks

 

[Markass the Worst]

Turkey Tom allegation analysis deconstruction. Why am I doing this, and why is it necessary? Enemies of the Farms are attempting to discredit it by using posts, either their own via burner accounts or those made by rogue users, to claim that nothing on the Farms is credible or in some cases the Farms being tested on if they can discern misinformation and obvious bait. The goal of this post is not only to demonstrate that the Farms is capable of policing itself, but also to properly verify what is true and what is not.

Nigger, none of this is going to make people listen to the farms even if your bullshit is true (which it isn't). Precisely because we document the truth, we are discredited in the eyes of the mainstream.

 

[Fucker Carlson]

What the fuck is this shit

 

[Gentle Wind]

Ava Tyson

she

her

oh dear.

 

[Tread Miller]

Why am I doing this, and why is it necessary? Enemies of the Farms are attempting to discredit it by using posts, either their own via burner accounts or those made by rogue users, to claim that nothing on the Farms is credible or in some cases the Farms being tested on if they can discern misinformation and obvious bait. The goal of this post is not only to demonstrate that the Farms is capable of policing itself, but also to properly verify what is true and what is not.

Your stated goals underneath this spoiler do not align with the information presented in your very long post, most notably in this "analysis" of the iMessage messages:

One of the things that we would argue makes Tom the victim of @sacramento89 is when she shows texts of Tom being hurt and bleeding after sex.

You analyze this message with the assumption that Turkey Tom is the one sending the blue messages, which is grossly incorrect and clearly sacramento89 is the one sending the blue messages telling Turkey Tom to stop being so rough during intercourse. Even someone like me (who doesn't know anything about iMessage other than the very basics and barely has been following the recent Turkey Tom drama) can tell that the blue messages are from sacramento89. Have you ever used a text messaging app before? How could sacramento89 possibly even send screenshots of text messages with Turkey Tom from Turkey Tom's point of view, when it seems like she doesn't have any access to his phone?

Kiwi Farms is (usually) capable of policing itself and verifying the truth, but clearly you are not able to. Maybe you are an "[enemy] of [Kiwi] Farms" attempting to discredit this place by making overly long, incoherent posts filled with poor analyses and misinformation.

 

[Null]

@CatWithCigar why are you flooding my site with bullshit, fuck off

 

[IrksomeIvan]

At least the schizo ramble about multifandoms and uttp by that one user, I forgot the name, was entertaining and actually schizophrenic/autistic. All I see is a massive meaningless wall of words and words. I bet this just some form of attention whoring from a kissless unloved stinky shitstained jeet who thought using Jeet CheatPT would magically give him truth nukes, or he just wanted to ragebait to have someone notice his worthless existence. Either way, no value.

 

[Sprate Header]

@CatWithCigar why are you flooding my site with bullshit, fuck off

inb4:
Deconstructing @Null’s Entire Argument, Point by Point:

 

[Subhuman Filth]

This thread is a fucking banger. I just skip the AI generated slop and get to people insulting the AI slop artist. This is way better than watch Twitter trannies gatekeep art.