What can be made of this UFO report from 2 years ago? Accurate or not?

Nice Guy: The issue I have with the PSICOP explanation is that it doesn't address the findings of the report (which do address things like calculation of size and distance). It specifically talks about the problems with estimation of size, but one of the solutions is determining where it was above the ground by someone familiar with the terrain (I believe it was a police officer in the report). The calculations were then estimated from the eyewitness's testimony, and took into account the exaggeration which occurs from memory. In addition, the report also says that there were "no planes in the area at that time" (which the radar data seems to confirm).

The data itself is where I'm having the hangup, as even taking into account the issues that CSICOP brings up, there is still the issue of the radar data confirming that an object accelerated and decelerated rather suddenly--much too quickly for a human pilot to withstand but might something so large be remote-controlled? It's maddening.

PSICOP = CSICOP (typo there, sorry)

ChainLightning: Do actually read the report, and the entire question. "Argument from ignorance" is something I'm familiar with. This particular report does take it into account... really, it's worth a read, and there's an actual reason I'm in this conundrum.

Superpsychicman: Could you be a little more specific about this coverup? I don't see much in the way of evidence of any kind of coverup in the report, or afterward (there's nothing pointing to it, as the event itself received ample news coverage, some even from international sources!).

Seriously, I'm going to demand proof if you're going to make such claims. I'm talking about this incident (and not any other), so I want facts related to this event only, not conjecture or comparison. Evidence, not theory. Proof, not belief.

Also: ChainLighting: Read the report. Then do a statistical analysis on the possibility that all of the radar towers were fooled at once, in the same place, at the same time, with corroboration from eyewitnesses... the argument relies on a preponderance of evidence, not on any single factor thereof. It's cogent, well-thought-out, well-documented, and there is plenty of other corroborating evidence as well. Though there are no physical traces, there is plenty of detail which was caught in a relatively short amount of time.

Or are you going to tell me that an entire town is conspiring against the scientific community to perpetrate a fraudulent claim? If this is the direction you're going, I'd love some proof. If not, please make your case for why corroborated testimony from multiple accounts cannot be held as accurate (especially as it's fine for some scientific claims, but not others). Why not, in this case?

For clarification: I am not saying "alien craft" nor did I imply it. What I did say is "object" because it's unclear what the origin of the craft is. What we do know is that the origin is unknown, and that the craft doesn't conform to any known design. So far, I'm seeing that people are resistant to the idea that the craft is clearly identified as unknown in origin, believing that this somehow equates to alien origin... my question is: can this be accurate?

I do have to say that Witchy's answer is compelling.