a) A lot of people do however still deny the massacres, including most notoriously the Turkish authorities. Going as far as to jail Turks who admit to them having taken place.
Technically, it's not the "Turkish authorities", it's a single lawyer, Kemal Kerinçsiz, who is responsible for the overwhelming majority of "insulting the Turkish nation" charges against people. As far as the "authorities" go, you will not doubt be overjoyed to learn that virtually every case the courts have either dismissed the charges or found for the defendants. I can't think of anyone in recent years who has actually been jailed for this "crime".
b) Do you actually have evidence of the Armenians suddenly indulging in widespread bloodlust, other that Ottoman government sources? Or that the Armenians who reached Syria were housed in anything but the caves they were shot in. Or how a often suppressed minority, allegedly outnumbered 6-1 by your measure is able to cause so much destruction and chaos but limited numbers of Ottoman troops are able to round them up without problems? Don't you realise how farcical this this?
With regard to population statistics, I'll refer to David McDowall, who while somewhat pro-Armenian is nonetheless one of the preeminent historians of this region in the post-WWI period:
McDowall said:
How many perished in all? There had probably been approximately 3 million people living east of Sivas in 1914.[1] Kurds probably outnumbered Armenians, but both were around the one million mark, with a largely Turkish urban population of about 600,000. The total Armenian death toll, which included those living in Cilicia and central Anatolia [and therefore outside of the area east of Sivas-Ed.] was probably in the order of one million. Very few survived in eastern Anatolia. Probably over 500,000 Kurdish civilians also perished, together with combatants probably totalling very approximately 800,000.[2]
[1] Public Record Office (Great Britain), series FO, No. 371/4192. See also Noel, Note on the Kurdish situation, 18 July 1919, and Robert Olson's discussion of the conflicting figures in The Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism, pp. 19-21, comparing the figures in Justin McCarthy, Muslims and Minorities: The Population of Ottoman Anatolia and the End of Empire (New York, 1983), and Hovanissian, Armenia on the Road to Independence.
[2] Zaki, Khulasat, p. 259, footnote; Olson, The Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism, p. 21.
With regard to Armenian massacres of Muslim (Turkish and Kurdish) citizens, he notes:
McDowall said:
Ethnic cleansing now became an essential ingredient of the conflict, as some had forseen.[1] When Russian forces briefly penetrated beyond Bayazid (Doğubayazıt) to Alaşkırt in December 1914, they garrisoned the area with Armenian troops, many of whom were ex-Ottoman citizens. By the time they left, only one tenth of the largely Kurdish population of the area, it was claimed, had survived.[2]
[1] See, for example, FO 371/2080 Buchanan to Grey, Petrograd, 6 October 1914; Townley to Grey, Tehran, 11, 14, and 16 October 1914.
[2] Ahmed Emin, Turkey in World War, pp. 218-19, quoted by Jwaideh, The Kurdish National Movement, p. 363. It is extremely difficult to know how reliable this account is. Given Kurdish treatment of Armenians it is perfectly credible. On the other hand, the Turks had the strongest possible motive for alleging that the Armenians began the atrocities.
He also notes, somewhat euphemistically,
McDowall said:
There have been Kurds in the Caucasus for possibly a thousand years [...] In the eighteenth century there was a migration of tribes northwards into the Caucasus region, particularly onto the Yerevan plain. [...] Muslim Kurds, less comfortable in Christian Armenia, not least because of Kurdish complicity in the Armenian genocides of 1895 and 1915, tended to migrate to Muslim Azerbaijan.
All in all, roughly half the population of the Yerevan Governorate (the Muslim half) "emigrated" to Azerbaijan after WWI.
Bear in mind that these are not "Ottoman government sources" as you claim; it is, rather, the word of a well-respected establishment historian who accepts unconditionally the Armenian narrative of events.
The next two questions are merely efforts at editorializing, so I'll skip ahead to the following one:
e) On the Greek explusion's my sources are it was decided by Kemel. To the distress and disgust of the various nations that were trying to neogotiate an end to the conflict. The Turkish government made it as difficult as possible for the evicted 'Greeks', often taking the men for forced labour, giving them minimal time for the deportation and refusing to allow Greek merchant ships to be used in the operation. Often the two communities themselves got on well together.There were cases of groups of deportees meeting in Greece [since the 'Turks' were deported later in response to the Turkish actions] and giving each other advice on where to settle and what crops to grow if they ended up in the others former homes.
I'm afraid that your sources are wrong. The population transfer agreed at Lausanne was decided by the respective governments and modeled directly upon a series of earlier population exchanges, particularly the Greek-Bulgarian transfer of populations which was decided during the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine in 1919, a full four years before Lausanne.
I fear that you will never accept the massive flaws in you're arguments but I think they need to be challenged because such hate rants not only distort the truth but prevent any realistic solution of problems.
You'd be well advised to consider your own advice here.