There are multiple independent primary and secondary sources for Pontius Pilate.
This is a thread about Jesus not Pontius Pilate. Do your own research.
Two problems with this argument: 1) The burden of researching claims is on those who make the claim.
2) The historicity of Pontius Pilate is closely linked to the historicity of Jesus, to say the least. If there were documentation of Pontius Pilate it could provide a possible way of lending credulity to a historical Jesus. So it would seem to be an appropriate line of discussion. Why don't you get off the high horse and back up your claims, assuming you can (Which I for one, doubt).
Why would that be the case? Just because PP is in the Bible? I don't see any connection whatsoever.
If there were no independent evidence for PP than the historical accuracy of the Biblical interaction between Jesus and PP would be suspect. Since this is a key moment in the life of Jesus according to the gospel accounts, it would raise a lot of questions about the historical trustworthiness of the gospel accounts.
Even more beneficial would be independent confirmation of the interaction between PP and Jesus (or at least a person who could have been Jesus)
Well the purpose of this thread is for those with claims of a historical jesus to back up those claims. As of yet there has been no evidence presented. I am not sure why you think my point about Pilate is relevant. Now that I have backed that up how about presenting some actual evidence like the Pilate stone to back up the historicity of jesus.
Pilate is relevant because if there is no historical Pilate there is no historical Jesus - at least not a Jesus crucified at the direction of Pilate. There could be a Pilate without a Jesus, there cannot be a Jesus without a Pilate. As to presenting evidence for the historicity of Jesus - I am not making the claim so you will have to look elsewhere for that.