There are by now TWO quite separate issues in this thread.
1. OP's original contention: the Wrights did NOT do in 1903 what they claimed they did, and engaged in deliberate misrepresentation until 1908, when they demonstrated a clearly practical aeroplane.
2. Contrariwise, another discussion accepts that the Wrights did what the conventional history says, but questions how important their achievements were.
On 2. there will never be an end in sight, because debating it is how we understand history. I have learned that roll control is by no means necessary, but most people wouldn't willingly do without it. On the other hand, the Wrights did without some things that would now be considered pretty important to a practical aeroplane (like longitudinal stability: they did without modern fly-by-wire by means of astonishing human anticipation). The launch track: it's not what we would do nowadays, but OTOH, if you said to someone in 1903 that in order to get a practical aeroplane, you first need to lay a kilometer or two of concrete, they would reply that you had a funny definition of practical (and this was a real issue in the 1940s and 1950s, too, to the detriment of British commercial aviation).
On 1., though, the claim that the Wrights were lying runs into problems of internal consistency. I think it is not disputed that in 1900 to 1902 they were flying pretty good gliders, based on previous work (Chanute?). In 1908, they gave public displays in France which were regarded at the time as very impressive. So, if they weren't doing what they said they were doing in the intervening years, they had to have been doing something else to get from state-of-the-art gliders to powered flight that was regarded as advanced in its own day, all in the space of five years. Either way, the Wrights end up looking like pretty competent aeronautical engineers, but on simplex1's account, they were also highly successful disinformation operators. Occam's razor is a methodological ploy, not a guide to the truth, but, really....