Just because some of us have pointed out that there isn't any such thing as "hydrostatic shock," doesn't mean high velocity doesn't have significant effects on wound-channel size, and hence "killing power." So no, we have not "debunked the high velocity small bullet theory." All we debunked was your contentions about hydrostatic shock.
For that matter, Elmer Keith was very aware of the advantages of high velocity--but he started big game hunting before expanding bullets could withstand impacting large animals at high velocity. He wasn't against high velocity, but poor bullet performance--though he evidently had a hard time separating the two in his mind, due to his early experiences with relatively fragile bullets.
Despite that, he continued to use some that couldn't even withstand moderate velocity. When he went on his first safari, for some reason he took his .333 OKH with some very fragile 300-grain Kynoch bullets. Sometimes they didn't even exit Thompson gazelles the size of mule deer fawns. This was a decade AFTER John Nosler started selling his Partition bullets, and Keith would have been far better off using a .30-06 with 180-grain Partitions.
Today we have bullets that will expand and penetrate when started at 3500 fps or more. I know this not because of any assumptions about bullet performance, but because I thoroughly tested them BEFORE going hunting, enough to know they'd work fine in the field. And they have, on quite a few big game animals.
I don't really understand how we got from discussing killing versus stopping power to here, but apparently you've missed a lot of what's been happening with bullet development since the .45-70 appeared.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
