No, they describe the same SIGHT. What it was--including whether or not it was one or many objects--is, without more hard evidence, a matter of interpretation.
Except that it corroborates RADAR data:
In the MUFON report, we read the following concerning the Radar data:
1: The object that shows up at 6:15pm on radar matches up directionally with what four witnesses saw between about 6:10 and 6:20pm on January 8, 2008
2: The high rate of speed seen by the witnesses from Selden, Chalk Mtn, and Lake Proctor is supported by the radar data, which calculates a minimum mvelocity of 2100 mph. The lack of high velocity in the object from the perspective of the Gorman witness may be due to the point of time that it was observed as the object was seen both stationary and moving at a high rate of speed
3: The object is large. The
smallest calculated value of the objects'size was 524 feet. This supports the impression of all witnesses
4: Little can be said about the altitude of the object other than all the calculations indicate that it was of sufficient rate to be detected by primary radar.
This analisys was based on the data from 5 different radar sites.
So what we have here is corrobororative data from eyewitnesses and radar. This data doesn't tell you what was observed, but it does tell you that a big object was observed at those times over Stephenville. I really suggest you have a look at the Mufon report for all the details.
But they make the EXACT SAME CLAIM!!!
Umm nope.. not quite

There's nothing that shows that they are.
Well that's your opinion then. I sure hope pilots know what they're doing when they're up there, and that they don't get startled by balloons, swampgas, birds, meteorites, or what have you

Except that as I have shown, there is no way they could have made a proper evaluation. They don't have video from multiple angles that can verify the distance. They don't have cameras made with the right settings to show the background stars. They don't have ANYTHING they need to support that assertion.
Except there's the corroborative radar data (see mufon report).
NO YOU CANNOT!!! If you KNOW the distance you can estimate its size, and vice-versa, but they're trying to DETERMINE BOTH!!! That CANNOT BE DONE!!!
And the WHOLE reason they were saying it had to be a single object (aside from the bogus stars bit) was because the lights stayed in the same place relative to each other without drifting; but of the objects in formation were further away than they thought, then any drift would not be noticeable!
That's a possible explanation, but is that really what happened? What do you think those lights were anyway? Airplanes? F16s?
Evolution only equipped us to be able to make that determination within 50-100 FEET. Ask ANY optician.
Well your claim was that we can't estimate any distance at all.. lol
Seriously, i don't have to ask anyone in a white coat whether i can estimate a distance. When i'm driving my car, i sure can anticipate abjects coming towards me, even if they're more than 100 feet away. The farther they are, the harder it becomes, that's true.
A satellite is in ORBIT, you IDIOT!!! It's HUNDREDS of miles away AT A MINIMUM!!!
So? It's still a luminous object, right? (well, reflecting light actually).
Haven't you ever seen two lights coming down the road, and they appeared to switch from being two motorcycles to one car?
Sure. But i've also seen trucks with lights and all blocking other lights.
WRONG! We still have to establish that it WAS an object to begin with!!!
Maybe YOU still have to do that, but the radar data already did that long ago

Fallacy of numbers. What's the proportion to the TOTAL number of astronomers? And how does that compare to the percentage of the population who has claimed to see UFOs?
Who cares? The point is that astronomers aren't excempt to seeing what can only be termed as UFO's. In fact they're seen by all walks of life, even by skeptics sometiumes (who then henceforth aren't skeptical about UFO's anymore).
Because it's a sign of gross incompetence.
That's what the church told Galileo as well.
You're still assuming that there ARE genuine UFOs! YOU SAID IT YOURSELF: they're "less likely to misperceive," but less likely is NOT IMPOSSIBLE!!!
The fact that they're less likely to misperceive gives weight to their UFO-reports, and also explains why there's likely a lower percentage of them reporting UFO's. Average Joe isn't as familiar with celestial events, and is more likely to report a UFO, hence the fact that about 95% of reported UFO's turns out to be explainable in conventional terms.