Mirage III Intercept Over Cambrai — Col. Jack Krine

On January 7, 1975, French Air Force pilot Jack Krine — later to reach the rank of Colonel — was flying a Mirage III interceptor in formation training near Cambrai Air Base in northern France when he and his formation partner encountered an unidentified aerial object that engaged in behavior no known aircraft of 1975 was capable of performing. At approximately 14,000 feet, Krine observed a large object — which he described as a cigar or cylinder approximately thirty to forty meters in length with a smooth metallic surface and a series of what appeared to be illuminated portholes or windows along its length. The object's surface was highly reflective and there were no visible propulsion systems, wings, or control surfaces. Most remarkably, the object was located between the two French Mirage IIIs and repositioned itself three separate times during the encounter — each time sliding into a new position between the two aircraft as if demonstrating awareness of their movements and deliberate intent to stay in the space between them. Krine attempted to close on the object for a better visual, but it matched his speed and maintained distance. When his wingman also attempted an approach from a different vector, the object moved again to maintain its position between the two jets. This cat-and-mouse sequence lasted several minutes and was observed by both pilots throughout. The object then simply departed — accelerating without any visible propulsion effect to a speed the pilots estimated at several times the speed of their aircraft. Both pilots reported the encounter immediately upon landing and filed formal incident reports with the French Air Force. The reports were classified and investigated by French Air Force intelligence. France had a particularly active official UAP investigation apparatus during this period, and the Krine case was among those forwarded to the ministry-level files that would later inform the establishment of GEPAN. Krine subsequently went on record multiple times in interviews given after his retirement, describing the incident in detail and asserting that he had encountered a structured craft of non-human origin. His willingness to stake his professional reputation on the account — he had nothing to gain and a great deal to lose from public association with UAP claims — has made this case a frequently cited data point in discussions of military pilot credibility as UAP witnesses.