I don't think it is a wind up. There is a fundamental communication problem in this discussion that may never go away.
Mass is perturbed, redirected, and the perturbing mass changes direction and velocity. The Mass also loses energy. Having a constant source of 'new' energy (thrust) it creates a dynamic system that becomes mysterious only in the perception of those who then discuss it.
I started fifty years ago, and the frustration was mine, due to an intuitive rejection of the proposition, specifically equal time transit, and camber.
As a dynamic system, an aircraft in unaccelerated flight is Newtonic. I do not disdain the effort to describe it however one chooses to. My beef is with the (apparent) effort to make the endeavour overly dramatic, overparsed, and obtuse. I think the problem arises because 'air' resists a simple 1,2,3 explanation.
What is 'wrong' with an attempt to describe ground effect as a result of mass being partially supported by a 'compressed' cushion?
All respect...