I've read the academic literature
You most obviously have not.
and it bears no resemblance to your opinions Mutsuk.
Well, my references are Dan Martin, Henk Blezer, Samten Karmay, Charles Ramble, Jean-Luc Achard and a few others. They are leading scholars in Bon studies. My opinion is based on reading their work and Bonpo works directly.
Nothing is certain in respect of Bon's history and composition.
Wrong. We have much certainty for post-dynastic works, history and doctrines. You don't know what you're talking about. This is silly.
'Yungdrung', 'black', 'reformed' etc. etc., are either comparatively modern titles or else meaningless terms invented by early Western scholars which are now discredited.
Wrong again... It's starting to be recurrent... Most of these adjectives appear already in Jigten Sumgon and are later endorsed by ill-informed and uneducated (in Bon lore I mean) Geluk scholars such as Thu'u bkvan Blo bzang Chos kyi nyi ma and others. dBra ston pandita has demonstrated the non-pertinent nature of their analysis. Read more, you'll know more.
What is certain is that Bon today is almost indistinguishable from Buddhism,
Modern Bon is a Sarma school, this is obvious to all. If you'd read the academic literature you pretend to have read, you'd have a clearer picture of the subject.
and therefore obviously it is an excellant spiritual path and source of refuge.
So now you're changing... Interesting.
and indeed a friendship with all religions.
And in this you are in error. You should read, if you can, works of siddhanta nature to understand why non-buddhist religions should be avoided. In this case, friendship is making you blind.
I'll dispute with anyone
Indeed, it seems clear.