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]