The great thing about the link you share is how biased it is, and how it doesn’t try and provide any nuance or understanding.

Among the four canonical gospels, three of them are held to be related on a source / literary level, the Synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke. John stands alone, usually dated relatively later than the other three, and arguably with some awareness of them. So when you come to the details of the accounts, you have texts that know they are differing about the details. This is different from, say, two witnesses sitting down simultaneously and writing conflicting accounts. It’s like one witness reading another witness’s account and editing/modifying it. And also knowing that their version is likely to be read alongside the original.

For this reason I think you have to wrestle with the fact that the gospel authors/final editors knew there were discrepancies between circulating versions, and knew that those discrepancies would be noted. All of which is simply important preliminary work to dealing with the question.

To return to your link, some of this is just ignorance. No gospel describes Jesus in the tomb for 3 full days, but counting time inclusively was common practice, so that Friday through Sunday would be thought of as 3 days. Similarly, Matthew mentions a guard, the others do not, but not mentioning a detail is not in itself an argument that there was no guard. It could be that a text is implying no guard, but silence on a point is not necessarily contradiction. These kinds of points need more nuance.

Likewise with the reaction of the women: in fact the Synoptics agree. Matthew has them tell the disciples. Luke has them tell the 11. That’s the core of the disciples. And then the rest. Mark has them remain quiet, partly because mark 16:1-8 forms a peculiar but pointed literary finish to the gospel. But they must have told the disciples on that account too, precisely because Mark records what they saw. It’s implicit to the text’s reality. As for John, your weblink cites 20:10-11, but conveniently leaves out 20:18 where subsequently Mary Magdalene goes and tells the disciples what she has seen.

Overall, the main genuine discrepancies are with sequencing: who went to the tomb, when, and what did they encounter there? In my view, the best way to read them is to understand that the early believers had multiple accounts of the tradition of the resurrection morning, differing in their remembered details and emphases, and they choose to preserve them in writing without unnecessarily harmonising them. At the same time, the final-authors of gospel texts made editorial decisions in keeping with their overall purposes in how they presented these details, compacting, and in some cases eliding, elements.