HEM (59) 16.12.2022

While walking his dog in Hem (59) at about 21:00, a witness saw 3 reddish rings arranged in a triangle move slowly on a straight path from west-northwest toward the east. He could barely distinguish a dark structure between the rings. After about 10 seconds, the UAP disappeared in place to the east-southeast, as though switched off. His account was collected 1 year after the observation and is the only statement available for the case. GEIPAN assesses moderate evidential substance*: one witness, with no photograph or video. The witness perceived high strangeness and was captivated by the triangular shape, dark mass, size, ring-shaped lights and silence. Two GEIPAN investigators carried out a field visit, interview and reconstruction about 1.5 years after the observation, supplementing the initial remote investigation (see investigation report). Several hypotheses were explored. Lanterns were rejected because the movement did not match the wind direction. An aircraft was not retained because no radar record confirmed one. Neither hypothesis explained the reddish torus-shaped lights described afterward. One or more drones with customized lights could explain some features: a straight path; the estimated speed at a distance of 100 m or less; and the possibility of fitting LED strips or other special lights. However, GEIPAN found no example with three torus-shaped lights like those reported. Other features are poorly compatible or incompatible with drones: - Distances inferred from the actual sizes of various recreational drones are entirely incompatible unless the drone was exceptionally large or the witness greatly overestimated the UAP’s apparent size. His questionnaire and field-investigation estimates, made about 1.5 years after the event, nevertheless differ little. - The report states that drone flight over this area and at night was prohibited, while acknowledging that someone could have ignored the restrictions. - No sound was heard despite very quiet surroundings, wind favourable to carrying sound toward the witness at the end, and the moderate distance required for a standard-sized drone. A military drone was also considered, but no firm conclusion could be drawn about an unusually large craft, and no concrete evidence supports that hypothesis. Despite the 1-year reporting delay and uncertainty about possible size overestimation, no hypothesis conclusively identifies the phenomenon. The case is classified D1: unidentified after investigation. *GEIPAN defines evidential substance as the amount of information collected for an account that is considered reliable and objectively substantiated.