I looked up my old post about this, which turned out to be a reply to another post by you, Dale
so here goes what I said:
-I doubt any lens for 135 film resolves 175mp worth of detail. With the introduction of the Nikon D800 and its 36mp sensor, it turned out that only a handful of lenses is sharp enough to consistently outresolve the sensor. The reason no-one ever noticed the unsharpness in loads of lenses is that film never got above 36mp either. So you can imagine what the chances are of any lens resolving 175mp. Besides, at 175mp, any lens no matter how good will be diffraction limited by f/5.6.
-He uses Fuji Velvia 50, the sharpest of all films - most films don't come close to this.
-He bases his calculation on the lines/mm for a 1000:1 contrast, wayyy stronger than what you'll encounter in any setting other than astrophotography. For normal situations, a contrast of 1.6:1 is used, giving Fuji Velvia 50 a resolution of 80 lines/mm and making the resolution "only" 22mp - or neatly at the limit of what people report for real-world prints from film.
-the "lie factor" he's talking about, due to Bayer interpolation: I don't have any hard data to back this up, but I don't think it's as strong as he states. A good sensor/lens/software combination can give critically sharp images at 100%. Also, at the 1000:1 black/white contrast he used for his calculations, I'm pretty sure it doesn't really matter what colour filter is added to an individual pixel, because the contrast will be visible anyway. At more reasonable contrast rates, sure it might make a difference, but as I showed above, even Velvia 50 is only at 22mp if you use reasonable contrast.
as for KR, I didn't read his article about why the camera doesn't matter; I found his article about wide angle lenses very useful. However, I also saw several things that were plainly wrong on his website. His About section answered why; basically, it's part being human and not having a fact checker, and it's partly his "sense of humor", as he enjoys 'making things up for fun'. He says: 'I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact.', and as such I have since treated his website. Useful at times, but not something to automatically be relied on. Which led me to fact-check his 175mp claim, leading me to my comments above.