Do you suppose this is good reason to think that people who reported seeing Jesus did not at first 'recognize' him? Perhaps even support the notion that they at least saw something?
As I said, I think it tells us at least that there was doubt about early reports of his resurrection.
Our sources are slim indeed; but we use the same number of sources for drawing other conclusions which are probably not far off, for example, the issues Ehrman points out (from OP).
I don't think the evidence regarding the resurrection is as good as the evidence for Jesus teaching the coming of the kingdom of God. But that's probably because of Q.
We'd almost think such popularity might make it less likely that folk wouldn't recognize him wherever he wentespecially men who had previously spent nearly every second of their lives with him!
Notoriety and recognizability were not the same thing necessarily 2,000 years ago. We have no multiply attested witnessing that anyone that knew Jesus well saw him post resurrection.
So, might it be that the sightings of 'Jesus' really took place?
The Criterion of dissimilarity only gets us to conclude that Jesus was executed, I think. Given he died - it is naturally in support of Christianity that a resurrection occurred. In this case we might say that sightings occurred, but this tells us as much about the post-death activities of the King of the Jews as the sightings of Elvis tell us about the King of Rock n Roll.
If you have access to any NT Wright's work - I think he's probably the best source of pro-resurrection history (at least I've seen his name cited relatively often), do you have any idea how he supports the notion?