False.  You make up false principles.  Church has always favored the testimony of reliable witnesses and considered it to be sufficient evidence if there are two witnesses (based on the principles of Sacred Scripture).  Docuмents and photos and videos can be faked that much more easily in today's digital age.  Standard of evidence in Church law (not your made-up standards) for the validity of Sacraments is and always has been the testimony of witnesses.

Even before Vatican II there were cases of secret consecrations for men who then were ordered to keep it under wraps and then perform other secret consecrations and ordinations behind the Iron Curtain.  Those were quite "official" even though the knowledge thereof was on a "need to know" basis.  And you don't need to know.  And what's it to you?  If +Vigano never uses his episcopal powers to ordain priests, perform confirmations, consecrate bishops, or consecrate holy oils, then what's it to you and why does it matter?  If I were in a position if possibly receiving Sacraments related to the +Vigano line, then I would inquire directly of Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Vigano, since I would then need to know.  Until then, I need to know nothing.

What I stated were facts, moron.  I swear that this forum is populated by idiots.  Cite the Canon Law that requires all conditional consecrations or conditional ordinations to be broadcast widely.  That was the practice of the Church even before V2 to keep them low key.  To satisfy the curiosity and demands of some bumbling bufffoon is not required of anyone.

It was also the practice of your "saintly Archbishop" to keep conditional orders low key, and then sometimes imposed people like Mr. Stark on them, throwing the Nine under the bus so that he could continue begging Rome to allow him to make the "experiment of Tradition".  I used to have to dig around to find out about various NO priests that showed up and often only found out because I knew the sacristan(s) who set up the chapel for a conditional ordination, but meanwhile said NO priest went out on the main altar without any announcement regarding his conditional ordination, leaving many seminarians wondering.

And the faithful deserve to know that THEIR bishops/priests are validly ordained.  I don't deserve to know that some priest in Zimbabwe that I hardly know and have no interactions with is validly ordained.

What I stated were facts, moron.  I swear that this forum is populated by idiots.  Cite the Canon Law that requires all conditional consecrations or conditional ordinations to be broadcast widely.  That was the practice of the Church even before V2 to keep them low key.  To satisfy the curiosity and demands of some bumbling bufffoon is not required of anyone.

It was also the practice of your "saintly Archbishop" to keep conditional orders low key, and then sometimes imposed people like Mr. Stark on them, throwing the Nine under the bus so that he could continue begging Rome to allow him to make the "experiment of Tradition".  I used to have to dig around to find out about various NO priests that showed up and often only found out because I knew the sacristan(s) who set up the chapel for a conditional ordination, but meanwhile said NO priest went out on the main altar without any announcement regarding his conditional ordination, leaving many seminarians wondering.

And the faithful deserve to know that THEIR bishops/priests are validly ordained.  I don't deserve to know that some priest in Zimbabwe that I hardly know and have no interactions with is validly ordained.