Yes you will find this rather amazing. These so called scholars have created a whole category of what they call collected facts, but when you look into it, it is nothing but highly exaggerated speculation.
For some or other reason Krishna and Jesus are related, because they were both shepherds. Well, Jesus was never a literal shepherd, in the gospel of John he illustrates his function in that way. However, since Krishna was supposed to be a literal cow-shepherd, early Christians must have borrowed this idea and fabricated John chapter 10.
You, have this idea with these religious figures being born on the 25th December, the Bible never stated that Jesus was born on 25th December.
Early Christians did in fact not celebrate Jesus birth on this date. In my country, among evangelical Christians we did not began celebrate Christmas until 50 years ago.
The only Christian thing about Christmas is Santa, who in fact was a rather generous and sincere pope, and that is basically it.
We have a range of anti-Christian organisations whose goal is to destroy the Christian faith, and their propagation is not typically marked by integrity.
I find it amazing that Muslims (at least those I meet) turn to anti-Theistic material, find arguments against the Christian faith, then sold away all the issues touching the religion of Islam, such as the virgin birth, Jesus, miracles, ascension, and some of his titles, and then keep the rest.
H2O at least posted the full list, many Muslims would never do that, less they planned theological suicide.
But let's wait and see what evidence they will bring on the table. Frankly, I had not expected anything else, but a long list copied by these so called scholars, there are simply no evidences.