I did address both from the outset, specific to the point that redirected gas flow is the minor contributor, and that the effects of ram drag variable with airspeed (and RPM) are very germane to the question of why we apply reverse at higher speeds, earlier in the landing, and remove it later on.
In both these cases, it would obviously be more practical to turn the compressed air, respectively rocket motors, towards the ground, rather than towards a wing which was to lift one off the ground. This is a matter of understanding physical principle, not of practice.
Do you realize that you just responded to your own quote? You're quoting yourself.
You're doing so incorrectly, and answering yourself incorrectly, but you're actually talking to yourself. I find that rather telling.
You're now attempting to draw a parallel between a wing which produces it's own lift with no forward motion, to rocket motors, or airflow directed not at the wing but downward? You're now introducing thrust again (after going to the trouble of telling us that it's irrelevant and isn't found until the four hundredth page of your favorite text. You've gone from blowing airflow over a wing and making it rise vertically, to directing thrust downward. Why not get rid of the wing entirely, in that case?
All of which is entirely irrelevant to the matter of reverse thrust. While redirected gas flow, often at a shallow angle, does little to contribute to the slowing action of an airplane during reverser operation on landing, certainly ram drag and the inherent loss of efficiencies between the gross thrust and net thrust produced by the engine do account for the lions share of the change in velocity when in reverse range.
What if the source of the "wind" is a large reservoir of compressed air?
What if it is?