Apart from Samten Karmay, who supports Per Kvaerne's view, I've never heard of any of these scholars, except Charles Ramble.
You simply display the fact that you know next to nothing to the tibetological literature. Martin, Blezer and Achard are the leading scholars on the field, together with JM Desjardins and a few others. Karmay and Kvaerne have retired since quite some time. Research on Bon based on the works of the three scholars mentioned above has made huge progress since Karmay and Kvaerne.
It makes no sense to dismiss Dr. Donatella Rossi, a well-known expert on Bon, in favour of Charles Ramble who knows next to nothing about the subject.
Rossi is not an historian (to say the least!) and I would not say she is an expert in Bon at all. On the contrary Charles Ramble has been working on Bon texts for ages. Your arrogance cannot hide your ignorance. And it makes perfect sense to dismiss Rossi from the list because her work is of low quality in terms of academic standards. Her "PhD" would never have been accepted in France for instance, it's at best an MA (and not even...)
In any event you can't rack up a few academic minnows
Minnows? Your ignorance is shocking.
to oppose a scholarly whale like Dr. Kvaerne. His position is that Bon is quite separate from Buddhism.
Well, that's his position. I guess he's the only one still maintaining that then. And it seems clear you have not been to a Bon monastery or studied their curriculum. But you come here and vomit your ignorance. You got guts, sure, but they are smelly.
As discussed earlier in the thread Bon has Four Jewels,
Sure, the fourth jewel is the Guru. It does not qualify as a non-buddhist device...