The Trancas File: The Argentinean Air Force Document that Reopens the Tucumán UFO mystery (2026)
Source: PipolNews
Date: Nov 2, 2026
By the PipolNews Team
The Trancas File: The Air Force document that reopens the
Tucumán UFO mystery
Satellite photos and military testimonies reopen the Trancas
case—an Argentine UFO file declassified by the Air Force in 2026.
What is the "Trancas case," and why was it never
fully closed?
Contents of the file: satellite imagery and testimonies
The file—a dossier containing satellite photographs and
statements from Argentinean Air Force personnel regarding sightings in Trancas,
Tucumán—began circulating among researchers and specialized journalists in 2026.
Background: The original case dates back to a wave of
sightings in 1995 in the northern part of Tucumán province—one of the most
well-documented episodes in the history of Argentinean ufology.
Official response: The Commission for the Study of Aerospace
Phenomena (CEFAE) has neither confirmed nor denied the full authenticity of the
document, leaving the technical and journalistic debate wide open.
A dossier spanning over sixty pages, bearing a
"classified" stamp and the official letterhead of the Argentinean Air
Force, began circulating within circles of UFO researchers and specialized
journalists in early 2026. It has become known as the "Trancas file,"
named after the department in Tucumán where, three decades ago, dozens of local
residents—along with at least one group of military personnel—reported
anomalous lights that defied conventional explanation. The document includes
low-resolution satellite imagery, transcripts of radio communications, and
testimonies signed by non-commissioned officers who were stationed in the
region during the 1990s.
The resurfacing of this case is no coincidence. Along with
Capilla del Monte and the Somuncurá Plateau, Trancas forms a triangle of
locations that, according to Argentinean ufology, has the highest density of
historical reports. Unlike those other cases, however, there had previously
been no official, letterheaded document directly linking the Air Force to a
systematic monitoring of the phenomenon in that specific area.
Between July and September 1995, residents of the towns of
Trancas, La Cocha, and San Pedro de Colalao reported to the local police
station that they had repeatedly observed high-intensity lights moving silently
over the Aconquija mountains. These reports reached the then-Intelligence
Directorate of the Air Force, which—according to sources consulted for this
article—dispatched an investigative team to the Tucumán base, a facility under
the jurisdiction of the Córdoba Materiel Area (Área Material Córdoba).
This phenomenon coincided with one of the peaks in UFO
activity most frequently cited in specialized Argentinean literature—documented
by researchers such as Fabio Zerpa and later revisited by the Center for the
Study of Aerospace Phenomenology (Centro de Estudios de Fenomenología
Aeroespacial). For years, however, the corresponding administrative file
remained—as alleged by various civil organizations—either "lost" or
deemed "not subject to declassification" for reasons of operational
security; the latter was a common designation used in military archives of that
era.
The material circulating in 2026 includes three
black-and-white satellite photographs, dated between August and September 1995.
These are attributed to a cooperation agreement with tracking stations that, at
the time, operated under joint civilian-military supervision in northern
Argentina. Two of the images show a luminous point above the course of the
Tacanas River; the third, which is of lower resolution, displays an elongated
shape whose nature—as noted in a handwritten marginal comment—was never
determined by the original analysts. In addition to these images, there are
four signed witness statements from personnel who were serving at the Tucumán
garrison at the time of the events. While the names have been redacted in the
copies that have surfaced, the ranks—one “suboficial mayor” (senior non-commissioned
officer) and three “suboficiales principals” (principal non-commissioned
officers)—remain legible. All four accounts describe an object emitting an
"intense white light with peripheral red flashes" that remained
stationary for approximately twelve minutes before moving off "at a speed
incompatible with the conventional aircraft of that era."
None of the testimonies mention any confirmed radar
contact—a point highlighted as a weakness by the more skeptical members of the
scientific community who were consulted.
A chronological reconstruction of the case helps explain why
it took three decades for the document to be made public, as well as the role
played by the establishment of official bodies to study the phenomenon,
beginning in 2011.
One aspect that particularly caught the attention of the
researchers consulted is the consistency in the descriptions provided across
all four testimonies—even though, as noted in the file itself, they were
recorded on different dates and by different officers. This alignment can be
interpreted in two ways: as an indication that the original event was genuine,
given that the accounts show no evident signs of cross-contamination,, or
perhaps the result of a narrative that had already crystallized within the
collective memory of the garrison before being committed to writing—a
phenomenon frequently documented in the psychology of eyewitness testimony,
particularly in cases involving high emotional impact.
Specialists in military archival methodology consulted for
this report further note that the absence of official receipt stamps on certain
pages of the file, combined with the lack of a complete reference number, makes
it impossible to establish with absolute certainty the document’s chain of
custody from 1995 until its public emergence in 2026.
When contacted by this outlet, CEFAE—the body that, since
2011, has centralized the analysis of anomalous aerospace phenomena reported by
pilots, air traffic controllers, and military personnel in Argentina—did not
provide an official confirmation regarding the full authenticity of the
"Trancas" file. However, it did not rule out the possibility that
some of the material might originate from genuine 1990s-era records that have
yet to be definitively classified. This institutional ambiguity—a recurring
feature in such cases, both in Argentina and in the United States (as seen in
reports from the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, or AARO)—fuels both
journalistic interest and methodological skepticism within the scientific
community.
Astronomers consulted point out that the Aconquija
region—due to its specific topography and its location along regional flight
paths—frequently sees reports of unexplained lights. In the past, such
sightings have been attributed to atmospheric phenomena, reflections from
aeronautical beacons, or satellites re-entering the atmosphere. None of these
hypotheses, however, has been conclusively applied to the specific photographic
material contained in the 1995 file, which has yet to undergo an independent,
public technical assessment. While the debate regarding the authenticity and
true scope of the file continues, the Trancas case joins a list of Argentinean episodes—alongside the 1986 incident in Capilla del Monte and various reports
from the Patagonian plateau—that combine human testimony, partial technical
records, and institutional opacity. Far from resolving questions, this
combination is precisely what sustains public and academic interest in a
phenomenon that, thirty years later, still lacks a consensus explanation.
What alternative explanations does the scientific community
offer?
Astronomers consulted point to atmospheric phenomena linked
to the specific topography of the Aconquija range, reflections from
aeronautical beacons, or the passage of satellites during atmospheric reentry
as plausible hypotheses—though none have been conclusively applied to the
specific photographic material contained in the file.
Why is the Trancas case compared to the reports from AARO in
the United States?
Because both organizations—CEFAE in Argentina and AARO in
the United States—exhibit a pattern of institutional ambiguity regarding
historical files: they neither fully confirm their authenticity nor dismiss
them entirely. This keeps the public debate alive and fuels sustained
journalistic interest in both countries.
(The “Trancas” cases in this dossier are different from the
classic Trancas Case of 1963, covered by Flying Saucer Review, Brad Steiger’s “Strangers
from the Skies” and other sources. For more information on that classic
incident, please visit Inexplicata’s article at: https://inexplicata.blogspot.com/2011/06/argentina-1963-trancas-case-revisited.html
-- SC)
[Translation ©2026 Inexplicata with thanks to Gloria Raquel]





