.JPG){kind=link}
San Carlos de Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina · UFO / UAP / USO · 31 July 1995.
The Bariloche case combines an aviation incident, observations of unusual lights and competing interpretations of what the observers saw. It also has a long documentary history: contemporary statements and radio traffic, a later pilot interview, a public-information release and successive Air Force analyses. The existence of those records makes the case suitable for close comparison. It does not mean that every participant described the same object or agreed about its cause.
The radio record
The published transcription of airport radio communications identifies Aerolíneas Argentinas flight ARG 674 and Gendarmería aircraft GN 705. It begins with operational information about a power interruption and auxiliary generation. During the approach, the airline crew asks about traffic and reports a light; the controller discusses the approaching Gendarmería aircraft. Later the crew describes an object to its right while separately seeing the other aircraft above. The tentative identification as a flying saucer occurs within that exchange.
The transcription marks an interruption in recording. After communications resume, it records further references to the light, another approach and the eventual arrivals of both aircraft. It is a transcription of speech, not a radar plot or a measured trajectory. Its UTC span crosses midnight into 1 August, while the incident took place on the evening of 31 July locally. The records should therefore not be split into two encounters merely because two UTC calendar dates appear.
What the contemporary statements say
In the transcribed statements submitted to airport management, commander Jorge Polanco describes approaching lights, green at their ends and a strong orange light centrally. His account associates the later electrical interruption with the object’s movement and records a climb away for another procedure. That is the crew’s account of the sequence, rather than proof that a light caused the interruption.
Airport operations officer Daniel García describes the generator failing, but also limits his own observation: he stopped watching to deal with the power problem and did not see everything over the lake. He explicitly says he could not identify a silhouette or form. Controller Ramón Blanco’s statement lists some equipment as out of service while the VOR and ILS remained normal. These distinctions resist a simplified claim that all airport instruments failed identically. The reports agree that something attracted attention, while differing in what the observers could establish about it.
Polanco’s later recollection
In a 2020 radio interview reported by Infobae from Nancy Pazos’s conversation with Polanco, the retired pilot described the experience as lasting seventeen minutes. He recalled a deep, inverted-plate shape, rapidly moving green lights and an orange light above. He also described the failed approach, his climb and his continuing conviction that an extraordinary craft had accompanied him. Those are his recollections and interpretation twenty-five years after the event.
That interview is valuable as a direct expression of his position, but it is not interchangeable with the contemporary paperwork. In particular, later estimates of size, duration and appearance should remain attributed to the interview. The article does not turn his confidence into a measured distance or a verified technological description. Nor does disagreement with his interpretation require assuming that he invented the experience: an observer’s report and the eventual explanation of its stimulus are separate matters.
The 2018 Air Force analysis
Rubén Lianza’s case study in the CEFAE 2018 report, printed pages 51–79, revisited a projector hypothesis investigated by Heriberto Janosch. It compared aircraft positions and a drawing supplied by Gendarmería commander Rubén Cipuzak with the movements recalled by projector operator Juan Carlos Rivero. Rivero demonstrated directions on a physical model before the comparison overlay was applied. CEFAE reported matching directions, colours and changes of movement.
The study argued for ordinary luminous causes and considered the initial aircraft-position confusion, projector light on cloud and the electrical problems separately. It also explained that the airport had no air-traffic-control radar at the time: the controller worked from position reports. The model was a retrospective reconstruction, not a recording of the sky. Its stated purpose was to test compatibility between accounts; a reader should examine its assumptions as well as its conclusion.
What was released in 2020
A CIFA compilation preserving the release correspondence, PDF pages 51–56, includes official replies to an information request about the case. The Air Force stated that the available paper documents had been incorporated into the file used for its 2018 analysis. The correspondence refers to the radio transcription and witness statements, and a September response points back to a July notification.
This is an administrative history of access to records. Its date does not make the sighting new, and release of a witness statement does not constitute official acceptance of the witness’s explanation. The compilation is a secondary host for the copied official correspondence; unrelated material and personal contact details within it are not reproduced here.
The later reassessment changes the qualification
The CIAE report for 2025, printed pages 130–152, explicitly revisits the earlier interpretation. Further fieldwork and interviews led it to separate the event into phases and propose more than one ordinary stimulus. It rates the eastern airport phase Type B, a strongly supported probable explanation involving aircraft lights and distant projector effects, while identifying the western lake phase as Type A projector light.
The report explains that Type B lacks the absolutely probative evidence required for Type A. Its different phase ratings are therefore material, even though its authors favour a natural explanation throughout. The whole encounter should not inherit the certainty assigned to one part.
Assessment: possibly explained
Possibly Explained. The later official analysis supplies a multi-cause explanation, with unequal confidence across the phases. This record retains that qualification rather than converting a probable finding into a blanket identification. Polanco’s extraordinary interpretation remains part of the case history.
A useful assessment follows the evidence at the level it can support: speech documents what was said; a statement documents what a person reported; a reconstruction tests a proposed fit. None should silently be promoted into another kind of evidence. The source trail here allows those comparisons without claiming a fresh flight-safety investigation or an independent reproduction of the original conditions.
Location, image and further reading
The map uses an approximate airport reference, 41.15°S, 71.16°W, rounded from GeoNames 6300590 in the Argentina dataset. It marks the airport associated with the reports, not a measured position of a light, aircraft or projector. The photographed terminal is a modern contextual view from 2014.
Sources reviewed 13 November 2026. The incident remains dated 1995; 2018, 2020 and 2025 refer to analysis, access or publication. The later report is reached from the Air Force’s report index. For another case in which reported aerial behaviour and later analysis differ, see the separate Campeche 2004 case.