And what were those revelations and how were you privy to those revelations?
The open source information is available for all to see. I believe the OP linked to the hearing. Please watch it.
What direct knowledge or evidence do you have of this? I still have a TS clearance and I have yet to see it. Where do I go to obtain this information?
I'll repeat, the open source information is widely available. As have been witness statements for decades. As have been photos and videos. Having a TS clearance is irrelevant as you would know this information would be highly compartimentalized well above TS and only on a need to know read in basis.
i don't know who is insinuating that those who were under oath are liars; again, you're projecting.
I work in logic and reason.
Science tells us that at times we use a process of elimination to make rational conclusions, does it not? We can rule out what these observed objects are not. They are not known animals. They are not known weather events. They are not known human space craft given they have been observed since before humans could fly or in our flight infancy, and they perform many generations beyond our best flying capabilities for humans or crafts using unknown propulsion, lift, aerodynamics, hydrodynamics, cloaking tools, etc. So what are they? We've ruled out humans and animals and weather. That leaves us with only a few options. Aliens, spiritual, time travel, dimensional travel....
If a witness under oath states, "I saw XYZ," and the skeptic retains the position that XYZ does not exist, there are finite scenarios. And, the skeptic's offering of a baseless opinion is outweighed by the presence of evidence, IOW the absence of evidence loses to the presence of evidence.
1. The witness is confused. A subset is that they believe what they are testifying but are mistaken. I would retort that the witnesses we are hearing from under oath, have relevant expert credentials and are not likely confused by human versus extra-terrestrial objects/beings. In addition to the current witnesses, I've seen interviews with expert/career/professional pilots, law enforcement, radar operators, etc. who detail objects that are beyond known human capabilities going back decades ago.
(Furthermore, even for those not under oath, who state what they saw. While not under oath, hard to get a entire city, including the then-Governor, to fabricate seeing the Phoenix lights and describing it as a UFO triangle, for instance).
2. The witnesses are lying. This seems extremely unlikely given the current caliber of individuals placed under oath, who would take serious career and criminal risks for lying.
(Subset here is what do people, like myself, have to gain by telling others what we saw? I've never profited a nickel yet the ridicule and frustration is often not worth the conversation. I be better off just laughing at the deniers when proven right.)
3. The witnesses are telling the truth.
Is there a plausible or reasonable 4th+ option?
If the best a skeptic can do is fold his arms and deny they exist, without offering any plausible alternate explanation, the skeptic IMO has unconvincingly failed to add anything to the dialogue by just stating an OPINION they don't exist. On the scales of evidence, that skeptic has provided literally nothing against the mountain of evidence to the contrary.