What I said was that whether they are under oath or makes absolutely no difference as to whether I believe them.
If someone is inclined to lie, they will lie just as easily under oath as not. If they are already doing something vile - like accusing someone of doing something they didn't do - which often carries its own threat of monetary or other penalties - they are going to continue to lie under oath. Especially when there is no other evidence, the threat of any punishment being imposed is really miniscule. And if you are viscious enough to falsely accuse someone of a crime (especially a public person), you're already extremely invested in continuing the lie. Accusing a public person of sexual assault already carries a burden much heavier than the penalty for perjury. Ask Christine Blasey Ford, who had her life turned upsided down, was doxxed within an inch of her life, threatened, and forced to move.
You asked me whether being under oath made someone more believable - and I've said in a number of different ways that it makes no difference to me. You're free to have a different opinion, but explaining why you have a different opinion isn't going to convince me to change how I view the reliability of a statement made under oath v. one not under oath - a view I've had for more than 5 decades.