Hi Terry,
Your comparison is interesting. The problem is that Howard Hughes was pretty nuts to do what he did and to leave his affairs in the state that he did.
And that would be the same problem with the testimony provided within the gospels. When given the opportunity at his trial, if Jesus had showed the Pharisees or Pilate a divine act, the matter would have been settled. Or even if Jesus had shown some exceptional insight to Pilate when he asked: "What is truth?", things would have turned out differently. But Jesus kept silent. What better place to demonstrate truth or divine authority than a court of law (Sanhedrin and the Roman trial)? But he chose not to demonstrate any authoritative power and so he was crucified. He got what he wanted but then still expected everyone to put faith in him. That's not a satisfactory way to prove who you say you are.
I would also like to draw your comparison further to the modern day. If God was prescient, then allowed almost 2000 years to lapse after his son's death, knew that technology would develop to its current state but then neglected to provide ample proof of what occurred back then, and to top it off insisted that people should absolutely believe in its authenticity, it actually points to a pretty unbalanced nutty super being.