Lillee and Thompson took the aggression a step further wanting to see "blood on the pitch". Other than for Roy Gilchrist, who was basically borderline insane, no sane fast bowlers took it that far as Lillee, Thompson and the few to follow. Then WI took it from there onwards.
If anyone claims that diplomatic incident was due to aggression, that is horse****. The issue was the field, nothing else, Fifty years later West Indies bowled faster, and much persistently than the said incident, sans the field, nothing much happened. "he West Indies were lucky to have a torrent of very good bowlers at once" is an over simplification. They were good, they were methodical and they were persistent. South Africa had Steyn, Morkel and few others, but they were no where close to the excellence of the WI.
Dismissing reverse swing has not revolutionized fast bowling is just sour grapes.
Do Lillee did not revolutionize fast bowling as some claim. Interesting.
Once again you are twisting reality, which is not surprising.
Heine and Adcock did take it as far as Lillee and Thomson, though without bragging to the media about it, leading to matches and series with persistent exchanges of bouncers like in 57/58 and 63/64. And again, Hall and Griffith did much the same in in '65.
To describe the bodlyline furore as being merely over the field is contrary to fact. The 'persistent bowling of fast short-pitched deliveries' was the issue. The laws made afterwards are focussed on just that and made no restrictions on the field.
WI did have luck, sub-25 averaging genuine quicks don't fall out of the sky - they've had none since Bishop in '89. They could've tried the same strategy with an attack of Vanburn Holder, Uton Dowe, Grayson Shillingford and John Shepherd, but it wouldn't have been such a success.
To describe reverse swing as not being revolutionary is a fact, because it is not a significant factor in a lot of (probably most) matches. The decade following its popularisation was one of the most batting friendly ever (the 00s). If it was revolutionary it would occur more often with more influence. And conversely changes in pace and cutters are less often used.
In general I am sceptical of those proclaiming 'revolutions' in anything (unless you have a very low bar for what constitutes a revolution).