Yes, the base textures are higher resolution on 360 (by quite a bit). That was my main point.You cannot really comment on what resolution that texture is after it's been through mip-mapping, it a lower resolution version of the original. You are arguing the original is higher res, but that's kind of irrelevant when talking about textures far away. I think it's all about texture filtering there is nothing else that can explain the difference when talking about mip-maps at extreme angles.
I think it's an impossible stance to argue the PS3 has a lower resolution texture and is less blurry. You cannot unblur something by adding contrast or black pixels. You can unblur a mip-map using AF, it is about the only explanation that makes sense.
They kind of discuss this here, you are even quoted on the previous page. The consensus is better base textures on 360, AF on the PS3. This is not controversial and the evidence backs it up.
However, regardless of whether AF is in use on PS3, it is a very low level of AF.
Look, here is that PS3 shot...
Notice how poor the filtering is? That could be, at best, 2x AF. Perhaps even selective AF.
However, I maintain that a different texture can appear different at a distance depending on how it was drawn. The mipmaps generated vary depending on what the original texture is.
I can't find the same area for 360, but look at the PS3 textures here...
On 360, the brick wall and the ground are much higher resolution. The ground texture is very different here, however, in that is has very dark cracks throughout. The 360 textures in that same scene are much lighter in appearance. You can see how pixelated and blurred the textures are (even up close), however. The resolution is clearly quite low. On 360, those artifacts are not present (though the texture does blur at a distance due to use of trilinear filtering).