Sixty Super Bowls: The Last Pilgrimage | Analysis by Brian Moineau

Sixty Sundays: The friends who’ve never missed a Super Bowl

From $8 seats to $8,000 trips, the Super Bowl has changed almost as much as the men who’ve watched every single one. This year Don Crisman, Gregory Eaton and Tom Henschel — three friends in their 80s — made the pilgrimage again, closing a chapter that began on January 15, 1967. For two of them, this pilgrimage may be the last.

A hook: why this story matters beyond football

There’s something quietly heroic about a ritual kept for six decades: it’s not just about touchdowns or halftime shows, it’s about continuity in a world that keeps speeding up. These men are living archives of the event that became America’s unofficial holiday. Their story asks a simple question: what do we owe our rituals — and to whom?

What happened this year

  • Don Crisman (Maine), Gregory Eaton (Michigan) and Tom Henschel (Florida) attended Super Bowl LX, preserving a streak that began with the very first AFL-NFL World Championship Game in 1967.
  • Crisman, nearly 90, and Henschel, 84 and recovering from a stroke, said this year will likely be their last trip. Eaton, 86, plans to go as long as he can.
  • The trio — once part of a larger “never missed” club that included media members and staff — are now essentially the living end of an era, having scaled back travel from weeklong stays to short trips focused only on the game. (apnews.com)

A little context: how the Super Bowl and fandom evolved

  • The first two championship games were called the AFL-NFL World Championship Game; “Super Bowl” became the common name almost by accident and then by marketing success.
  • Early Super Bowls felt different: cheaper tickets, smaller media machines, less corporate spectacle. Henschel remembers paying $12 for a ticket in 1969. Today, attending the game — travel, lodging, ticket markups — can run into the thousands. (apnews.com)
  • Over 60 editions, the Super Bowl transformed from a championship to a cultural event: halftime megashows, global advertising, and multi-day corporate campus takeovers around host cities.

Why their streak is about more than numbers

  • Ritual and friendship: The three men speak less about specific plays and more about the habit of showing up together. Their annual meetups, brunches and shared travels turned a sporting event into a social anchor.
  • Memory and changing America: Through their eyes you can trace social shifts — from stadium integration and the first Black winning quarterback to the commercialization of sports.
  • The cost of dedication: Their scaling back — shorter stays, tighter budgets — mirrors how the Super Bowl itself has become more expensive and logistically challenging. For them, the decision to continue is a personal calculus of mobility, finances, and how much the ritual still feeds their joy. (washingtonpost.com)

What this says about fandom and aging

  • Traditions adapt. Where once they’d spend a week soaking in the host city, now it’s three or four days and mostly the game. That’s not resignation — it’s pragmatism.
  • The emotional weight of a final trip: Saying “this might be my last” reframes the game as a milestone rather than an event. It’s the closing of a long-running story that others helped write.
  • Public memory vs. private ritual: The Super Bowl is public spectacle; their streak is private devotion made public. It reminds us that the biggest cultural events are made meaningful by countless small, consistent acts of attendance and attention.

Takeaways for readers

  • Small rituals accumulate into identity: attending once is memorable; attending 60 times becomes a life’s thread.
  • Cultural institutions age with us: as the NFL and its marquee event get bigger and pricier, the people who built the memory bank adapt — or fade away.
  • There’s dignity in ending things on your own terms: both Crisman and Henschel acknowledge limits and choose a graceful exit rather than forcing the habit beyond its meaningfulness. (apnews.com)

My take

The story of Crisman, Eaton and Henschel reads like a human-scale novel about time: the highs, the losses, the friendships that outlast careers and changing cities. Sports often give us a truncated narrative — winners and losers — but this trio shows the richer arc: persistence, memory, and the quiet decision to step back when the ritual stops serving who you are. It’s easy to romanticize “never missed” streaks, but the more interesting, humane moment is watching people choose how to end them.

Sources

(Links were checked on February 7, 2026.)




Related update: We recently published an article that expands on this topic: read the latest post.


Related update: We recently published an article that expands on this topic: read the latest post.

Everyday Clothes That Beat Surveillance | Analysis by Brian Moineau

The most effective anti‑surveillance gear might already be in your closet

Intro hook

You’ve seen the flashy anti‑surveillance hoodies and the pixelated face scarves in viral posts — the kind of gear that promises to “break” facial recognition. But the quiet truth, as Samantha Cole reports in 404 Media, is less glamorous and more practical: some of the best ways to evade automated identification are ordinary items people already own, and the cat-and-mouse game between designers and algorithms is changing faster than fashion trends.

Why this matters now

  • Surveillance systems powered by face recognition and other biometrics are no longer lab curiosities. Police departments, immigration authorities, and private companies routinely deploy models trained on billions of images.
  • The tactics that once worked (painted faces, printed patterns) often have a short shelf life. Algorithms evolve, datasets expand, and a design that confused an older model can fail against a current one.
  • Meanwhile, events over the last decade — from the post‑9/11 surveillance build‑out to the explosion of commercial biometric datasets — have created an environment where everyday movement can be tracked and matched by algorithmic tools.

What 404 Media reported

  • The article traces the evolution of anti‑surveillance design from early projects like “CV Dazzle” (high‑contrast face paint and hairstyles meant to confuse early algorithms) to modern interventions.
  • Adam Harvey and others have experimented with a wide range of approaches: adversarial clothing patterns, heat‑obscuring textiles for drones, Faraday pockets for phones, and LED arrays for camera glare.
  • Many commercial anti‑surveillance garments — often expensive and aesthetic — rely on 2D printed patterns that may only briefly succeed against specific systems in controlled conditions.
  • Simple, mainstream items (for example, cloth face masks or sunglasses) can meaningfully reduce recognition accuracy, especially when algorithms aren’t explicitly trained for masked faces or occlusions.

What the research and experts add

  • Masks and other occlusions do impact face recognition accuracy. Government and scientific studies during and after the COVID era showed that masks reduced performance for many algorithms, with variability across models. (NIST and related analyses documented substantial drops in accuracy for masked faces across multiple systems.) (epic.org)
  • Researchers have developed “adversarial masks” — patterned masks specifically optimized to break modern models — and some physical tests show these can dramatically lower match rates in narrow settings. But transferability is a problem: patterns optimized on one model may not work on another, and real‑world lighting, camera angle, and motion complicate things. (arxiv.org)
  • Beyond faces, systems increasingly rely on indirect biometric signals (gait, clothing, body shape, contextual tracking across cameras). Hiding a face doesn’t eliminate those other fingerprints; blending in is often more effective than standing out.

Practical, realistic anti‑surveillance strategies

  • Use ordinary items strategically.
    • Cloth masks and sunglasses: They reduce facial detail and can lower identification accuracy for many models, especially if those models were trained on unmasked faces. (epic.org)
    • Hats, scarves, hoods: Useful for obscuring angles or features; effectiveness varies with camera placement and algorithm robustness.
  • Favor blending over spectacle.
    • High‑contrast, attention‑grabbing patterns can create unique, trackable signatures. In many situations you want to be inconspicuous, not conspicuous.
  • Remember context matters.
    • Surveillance systems often fuse multiple cues (face, gait, time, location). One trick rarely makes you invisible.
  • Protect the data you carry.
    • Faraday pouches for devices, selective disabling of location services, and careful app permissions help reduce digital traces that link you to camera sightings.
  • Consider threat model and legal environment.
    • Different tactics suit different risks. Techniques that help everyday privacy are not the same as methods someone under active legal or state surveillance might need. Laws and local rules (e.g., rules about masking, obstruction) also vary.

The investor’s and designer’s dilemma

  • Anti‑surveillance design sits at an odd intersection of ethics, fashion, and engineering.
    • Designers want usable, attractive products.
    • Security researchers want robust adversarial techniques that generalize across models.
    • Consumers want affordable, practical solutions that won’t mark them as an outlier or get them hassled.
  • The market incentives are weak: a product that works yesterday can be obsolete tomorrow. That makes sustainable funding and broad adoption difficult.

Key points to remember

  • Ordinary clothing items — masks, sunglasses, hats — can still provide meaningful privacy benefits against many facial recognition models. (404media.co)
  • High‑profile adversarial wearables are often brittle: they may fail when algorithms or environmental conditions change. (404media.co)
  • Systems are moving beyond faces: gait, clothing, and cross‑camera linking reduce the protective power of any single tactic.
  • Blending in and reducing digital traces often provide better practical privacy than trying to “beat” recognition with gimmicks.

My take

There’s an appealing romance to specialized anti‑surveillance fashion: it promises the drama of outsmarting surveillance with a bold garment. But the more useful, defensible privacy moves are quieter and more mundane. A cloth mask, a hat pulled low, smart device hygiene, and awareness of how you move through spaces are all things people can use today. Real protection comes from a mix of personal practices and policy: better product choices buy you minutes or hours of anonymity, while public pressure, oversight, and bans on reckless biometric use create lasting impact.

Sources




Related update: We recently published an article that expands on this topic: read the latest post.


Related update: We recently published an article that expands on this topic: read the latest post.