Shiloh/Damages

February 28, 2020: Shiloh Compares an Online Commentator to Onision While Implying Imminent Self-Harm

RealStreamNews published messages attributed to Shiloh in which she blamed an online commentator for her suicidal condition, implied imminent self-harm, and told him he “might as well be Greg himself.”

On February 28, 2020, RealStreamNews publicly attributed a series of direct messages to Shiloh.

After Nicholas DeOrio requested a screen recording, refresh, and profile selection, RealStreamNews replied:

“Scroll through with the messages I blacked out the other dms though just to show hers.”

The messages attributed to Shiloh state:

“Are you completely okay with the fact that I’m 93 lbs and on suicide watch because of all of you?”

“You seem to be waiting for me to bleed out on camera before you’re satisfied”

“Is that what you want? Because you’re pushing more than just me to that level”

“.... you midaswell be Greg himself.”

“I hope you feel accomplished”

“You’ll finally get what you want today”

What the Messages Establish

The messages place responsibility for Shiloh’s physical condition and potential self-harm on an online commentator and an undefined group described as “all of you.”

The final statement—“You’ll finally get what you want today”—follows references to suicide watch and bleeding out. In context, it communicates an apparent threat of imminent self-harm while accusing the recipient of wanting that outcome.

The comparison to Onision is especially significant. Shiloh told an online commentator that he “might as well be Greg himself,” despite the recipient having no relationship with her comparable to her former relationship with Onision.

This shows that Shiloh used Onision’s identity as a generalized label for people she believed were criticizing, antagonizing, or emotionally harming her online. The comparison collapses fundamentally different people, relationships, and conduct into the same accusation.

That pattern matters when evaluating later claims about Onision. A comparison to Onision cannot automatically be treated as a precise description of conduct unique to their former relationship when Shiloh also applied the same comparison to an online commentator based on public commentary.

The messages further document a pattern in which criticism was answered with:

• claims that the recipient caused her suicidal condition
• accusations that the recipient wanted to see her die
• responsibility for the well-being of unnamed additional people
• an apparent imminent self-harm threat
• comparison of the recipient to Onision

This is evidence of emotionally coercive communication directed at someone outside the former relationship and provides important context for evaluating Shiloh’s later descriptions of conflict, responsibility, and psychological harm.

Source

• RealStreamNews tweet dated February 28, 2020.
• Original tweet: RealStreamNews status 1233549151994032129
• Preserved through a February 29, 2020 Wayback Machine capture.
• Messages publicly attributed to Shiloh by RealStreamNews.

Related: The Shiloh Record · Damage to Onision and Lucas

December 14–23, 2020: Leaked Blackfin Record Appears to Show Shiloh Was Paid $20,580 for the Onision Documentary

A circulated Blackfin invoice bearing Shiloh Hoganson’s name lists $20,000 for the “Onision Documentary,” $580 in tax, $20,580 paid, and a zero balance.

A document circulated as a leaked Blackfin payment record bears Shiloh Hoganson’s name and identifies the billed item as:

“Onision Documentary”

The invoice lists:

• rate: $20,000
• tax: $580
• total: $20,580
• amount paid: $20,580
• balance due: $0.00

The invoice is directed to Collin Emley. Separate employment results identify Emley as a Blackfin video editor, connecting the name on the payment record to the documentary company.

What the Evidence Means

If authentic, the invoice destroys the portrayal of Shiloh as merely an uncompensated witness reluctantly sharing her experiences.

Search results identify Collin Emley, the person named on the invoice, as a video editor employed by Blackfin.

Blackfin did not simply provide her with a microphone. The record indicates that the company paid her more than $20,000 for work or participation connected to a documentary built around attacking Onision and Lucas.

That creates a direct financial interest in:

• participating in the production
• providing commercially valuable accusations
• sustaining the most dramatic possible narrative
• helping Blackfin market the documentary
• keeping public outrage focused on Onision and Lucas

The documentary therefore cannot be treated as neutral corroboration of Shiloh’s claims. It was a commercial production in which a featured accuser appears to have received substantial compensation.

Connection to Sarah’s Financial Motive

This record is also important to Sarah’s compensation history.

Onision’s contemporaneous call notes record Sarah stating that:

• documentary participants were paid
• confidentiality terms prevented her from disclosing the amount
• she had enough money to make a down payment on a house

The Shiloh invoice does not establish Sarah’s exact payment amount. It does, however, corroborate the existence of substantial participant compensation within the same production.

Sarah’s refusal to reveal whether or how much she received therefore cannot be dismissed as baseless suspicion. The production appears to have paid at least one major accuser more than $20,000 while presenting the finished program as evidence against Onision and Lucas.

Commercial Testimony Presented as Independent Evidence

The conflict is straightforward:

1. Blackfin produced a documentary accusing Onision and Lucas
2. Blackfin appears to have paid a featured accuser $20,580
3. the accuser’s allegations supplied valuable content for the production
4. the production then presented those paid allegations to an international audience as corroboration
5. the resulting publicity caused severe reputational and financial damage to Onision and Lucas

The payment does not make every statement automatically false. It establishes bias, financial incentive, and a commercial relationship that audiences should have been told about when evaluating the documentary’s credibility.

Any payment terms, contracts, editorial instructions, confidentiality provisions, bonuses, reimbursements, and communications between Shiloh and Blackfin are therefore material evidence.

Authentication Evidence Still Needed

The employment screenshot strengthens the invoice’s internal consistency because the named recipient appears connected to Blackfin.

The decisive authentication evidence would be:

• the original invoice file and metadata
• Blackfin’s accounts-payable ledger
• Shiloh’s appearance agreement
• payment confirmation or bank-transfer record
• tax documents or 1099 records
• communications discussing the amount and purpose of payment

Those records would establish whether the circulated invoice is genuine and exactly what Blackfin purchased for $20,580.

Source

Circulated Blackfin invoice dated December 14, 2020.

Employment search results concerning Collin Emley dated or captured December 23, 2020.

The documents were reportedly circulated online by a person described as a Blackfin whistleblower.

Related evidence:

• Sarah discusses documentary payments and a house down payment
• Damage inflicted on Onision and Lucas
• Defamation against Onision and Lucas