A dog walk in Hem became an unusual-sky report when a resident saw three reddish rings crossing the night sky on 16 December 2022. The lights appeared to form a triangle and went out together. France’s GEIPAN investigated the account and retained it as unidentified, while documenting substantial limits to what could be reconstructed. The result is an unresolved report, rather than a demonstrated extraordinary aircraft.
The encounter as reported
The witness placed the observation at approximately 21:00 local time, with an uncertainty of about five minutes. Three torus-like or oval rings appeared in an isosceles-triangle arrangement, the point apparently facing forward. They moved steadily across the view for roughly ten seconds. According to the account, they disappeared before being hidden by houses, as though all three lights had gone out together.
The witness perceived some darker sky between the rings. That impression does not establish a single solid triangular body connecting them. The distinction matters because an arrangement of three lights and an observed triangular craft are different evidential claims. UKPX’s triangle tag describes the reported arrangement, not a verified hull.
There was no photograph or recording of the event. The pictures illustrating the reported appearance in the investigation are later reconstructions. They should not be mistaken for contemporaneous images. The witness also described a small meteor a few seconds later, but regarded it as unrelated and had omitted it from the original questionnaire. GEIPAN records the clarification rather than treating the meteor as the main phenomenon.
A report made a year later
The questionnaire was submitted on 15 December 2023, almost a year after the sighting. The witness said notes had been made on paper after returning home and transferred to an electronic diary the next day. Electronic notes were subsequently found and supplied in December 2024. They offer a check on the later narrative, but are not a second witness or an instrument record of the sky.
Two investigators carried out a site visit on 25 June 2024. The delay between the event and the visit was about eighteen months. It allowed the observation direction and surrounding buildings to be examined, but it could not recreate every condition of the original night. Estimates refined in that exercise should therefore remain estimates.
An initially stated elevation of about 75 degrees changed during the field reconstruction. The report gives a maximum reconstructed elevation around 50 degrees, with lower values at the beginning and end. It also refines the direction of travel. These revisions illustrate why an early verbal impression should not be treated as a measured trajectory.
Apparent size and weather
The witness compared the whole configuration with a sizeable object held at arm’s length. The initial comparison was around 40–50 centimetres, later reduced during reconstruction to approximately 30 centimetres at closest approach. Each ring was compared with a smaller arm’s-length size. These are angular-size descriptions. Without range, they cannot determine the real diameter of a ring or the dimensions of a craft.
Weather records from Lille–Lesquin, roughly twelve kilometres south-west, indicated a cold, misty night: about −3.2°C and visibility around 3.4 kilometres. Winds were weak near the surface, with different conditions aloft. GEIPAN used the available wind information to test drifting-object explanations, rather than assuming that every altitude shared the ground-level wind.
Sky lanterns were considered but not retained. The reported direction and ring appearance did not provide a satisfactory match in the investigation. Rejecting that candidate did not identify the lights; it removed one proposed explanation under the reconstructed circumstances.
What aviation checks could establish
The year-long reporting delay prevented investigators from obtaining the requested military radar records. This must not be retold as a radar search proving that no aircraft was present. Relevant radar evidence was unavailable. Checks of civil flight-tracking sources did not produce a matching identification, but those services do not constitute a complete record of everything airborne.
The report also examined drones, including possible red lighting arrangements. Depending on the assumed physical arrangement, a small drone would have needed to be unusually close to match the reported apparent size, or the witness’s size estimate would need to be substantially wrong. Noise and the torus-like appearance created further difficulties. Consultation with a naval drone instructor did not produce a supported military-drone match.
These comparisons depend on remembered size, appearance and geometry. Their failure to supply a convincing identification is useful, but it does not convert those witness estimates into instrument measurements. Nor does it establish that every possible drone design or unauthorised flight was excluded.
Outcome
The 26-page investigation is dated 14 January 2025. GEIPAN’s category is D1: unidentified after investigation. UKPX records Open (Unresolved), with the single witness, delayed submission, reconstructed angles and unavailable radar data stated alongside that result. The case’s interest lies in its unusual reported appearance and the documented testing of alternatives. The available evidence does not establish extraterrestrial origin, propulsion, material structure or a precisely measured flight path.
Map location
Approximate locality pin at the French government geographic API’s centre for Hem, commune 59299. It is not the witness’s address, an exact sighting position or a visitor destination.
Sources and review
The source links above distinguish reported experiences, investigations and later interpretation. Primary case source: original published material. Sources and access information checked 15 November 2026. Publication and review dates are not substituted for incident dates.