If I were in his shoes, given all the issues surrounding the first doubtful/invalid attempt, I would certainly have recorded any subsequent conditional consecration, so that prospective seminarians, parents, faithful, and adversaries would have one less concern.
Indeed! Especially with that "cesspool" of CathInfo.
You don't want to give those guys any rope to hang you with!
Seriously, from his perspective we're all a bunch of Al-qaeda terrorists, and I sit in a chair all day twirling my mustache and petting a cat. Even though our collective "fraternal correction" calling out Fr./Bp. Pfeiffer is actually the best form of charity called for in this situation -- he sees it differently. From his perspective, he has many "enemies".
If the only thing out there on the Internet forever is the video showing how slipshod the ceremony was, how frail the consecrator was, etc. I would be the first one getting that conditional consecration video out there POST HASTE.The correction needs to be as concrete, certain, popular, and available as the original defective ceremony *which now Fr. Pfeiffer himself admits was defective*.
And might I point out that first ceremony is available everywhere "forever" since I've mirrored it on my server now. So he has to match THAT.
If Father didn't record and/or refuses to release the conditional consecration ceremony, he has a lot to learn about marketing, propaganda, etc. You don't want the last thing people see to be a screw-up. Everyone is going to see it and walk away shaking their heads, "THAT needs to be fixed..."
Seeing something on video? That's real. Taking Fr. Pfeiffer's word for something? Much more hit-and-miss. Proof trumps hearsay. And when it comes to verbal testimony from Fr. Pfeiffer, sometimes it's true, but many times it's not. Sad, but true. I could list many lies Fr. Pfeiffer has told publicly, but I don't have time right now. There are many threads on CI about this.