Seeing Through The Haze - Merrill vs Quattro vs CFA

In a recent post I asked a question that implied that Merrill cameras can see through haze (as if they can see through haze better than other cameras). When doing some research, I found that it's difficult to find any material that supports this, though I could swear I've seen multiple examples in the past of how that is the case. I wonder if that's just a myth . . . and if so, I wonder how popular that myth is. Is it just me?

Ted asked if I had any references, and I have to admit I do not. I thought it would be pretty easy material to find, but it doesn't seem to be so easy.

If anyone has any example shots from a Merrill camera, which show a distant mountain or tree line or buildings (or anything), which appear to be more visible through haze (or smoke or clouds or whatever), and you have similar shots taken with the same or an almost identical lens at the same time, but with a different camera (i.e. not a Merrill), please post your comparison shots, so we can see if this is a myth or fact.

If nobody here has any example shots, I guess I'll just have to go out and get some. My comparison will have to be limited to Merrill vs Quattro, using the exact same lens, because I don't have an m42 adapter for my Nikon D810 yet. It would probably be better if I had a good 135mm lens in m42 mount for that too, and I don't have one of those yet either.

EDIT: I just found this: "Foveon sensors also cut through haze like it isn't there, bayer interpolation gets itself into a bit of mess with hazy far distance detail, and in my experience, X-trans is even worse for that." - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60885324

Further down in that thread Lin wrote, "As Mike E. said, the differences are spectacular with fine tonal details in prints. For cutting through haze, Bayer CFA simply can't compare."