Do those images support your theory or contradict your theory?
They do neither for two reasons. First, Brian isn't talking about shooting static subjects. Second, neither seems to show the effects of high ISO, nor would such effects necessarily be visible "on screen" at the shown sizes.
Lots of new technology, such as advances in sensors, coatings, optical materials, and calibration software and the like are designed to make it easier to get to that "highest quality image."
But the "highest quality image" is meaningless unless you get the shot in the first place. Historically, even more new technology was aimed at making it easier to capture a good shot rather than a perfect one. Auto Exposure, auto focus, auto white balance, auto ISO and VR all fall into this second category. So does most post processing.
Less obviously, so do all the efforts to make smaller and lighter gear. I'm found of saying the "IQ" of a missed shot is exactly zero. That's way I'd argue that the new 70-200mm f/4 falls into this second category rather than the first.
Finally, there's a whole bunch of real world factors which new technology can't do anything about. Three examples are subject movement, depth of field, and diffraction limits. The irony here is that new technology has raised overall expectations, so what was "acceptably sharp" in the past is no longer considered acceptable.
"There is no real magic in photography, just the sloppy intersection of physics and art." — Kirk Tuck