Oh dear, Rinoceronte. Where did you find that list of 'Popular Misinterpretations & Equivocations with Disproofs'? I don't know many people in this field who go around with such beliefs. And if there are such people, I don't think your 'disproofs' are actually very helpful. I address some of your points below, using the same numbering of points as you.
1. How speakers of other languages use their perfect tenses is irrelevant to Modern English, which should be analysed in its own terms. Whilst I prefer to think of this as a retrospective aspect rather than a perfect tense, there is no doubt that this form has some connection with the present time. Even when the British use the form for a happening in the recent past (while Americans tend to use the past simple), there is some implied connection with the present. Thus he left draws attention to the fact of his leaving in the past, whereas he has left draws as much attention to the fact that he is no longer here.
2. I agree that the word perfect is not particularly helpful for the name of this form in English – but it’s not particularly helpful in other languages either. Read any serious writers on grammar, and you’ll find on-going arguments about terminology. There are few ‘internationally accepted terms’.
3. You seem to be playing with words here. I really don’t understand what you mean about English when you write: ‘So, Continuous aspect is as a part of Perfect Continuous, as a dot is a part of a line.’
4. You state categorically: ‘Hungarian, German and English grammars do not have the category of aspect, unlike the majority of European languages.” Sorry, Rinoceronte, many of us working with English consider the Progressive (Continuous/Durative) and Perfect (Retrospective) forms as aspects. Some of us consider the possibility that it may be useful to treat the ‘going to future’ as a prospective aspect, and ‘used to’ as a past habitual aspect. Don’t forget that there are actually no such things as tenses or aspects. These words are simply labels that we use to make talking about certain forms of certain words possible.
5. "Stative Verbs Rule has been being applied throughout the history" I don’t know anybody in the world of English who hold that misconception. In fact I can’t think of anybody who quotes a ‘Stative Verbs Rule’
6. You are putting forward a view, not a fact. There may be, as R A Close notes, ‘Grammar as fact’ (eg the plural of child’ is children not childs) but there are no hard facts about grammatical terminology. The words tense and aspect mean what linguists agree they mean, and there appears to be no universal agreement as to what they mean precisely. And I think that many would disagree with you that time is a fundamental category for verbs in English. As David Crystal (1971) : “ If we stick to a traditional concept of tense, then the hypothesis ‘tense in language signals time’ is likely to be accepted without question. (…) But the hypothesis can be shown to be false.” (My emphasis).
7. Once again, just a view.
8. What have the problems, real or imagined, with the Spanish subjunctive to do with English grammar?
9. You are, yet again, just presenting your views.
10. There are many types of conditional sentence. I give below just ten examples of what some might call Zero Conditional sentences.
- If you heat ice, it melts.
- If you heat ice, it will melt.
- If water has been boiled for twenty minutes, it is completely sterile.
- If the metal snaps, it has been subjected to extreme stress.
- If a dog is wagging its tail, it’s happy
- If you can speak Swedish, you can understand Danish.
- If Andrea cooked, I washed up.
- If Carol is working in the garden, Peter often goes down to the pub.
- If Andrea cooks, I will wash up.
- If Andrea cooked, I would wash up.
Note the variety of verb forms. Note also that  and  have the same form as so-called First Conditionals, and that  has the same form as a so-called Second Conditional. Only context and co-text will tell us the message the speaker intended to convey. One of the real problems with conditionals is caused by writers who try to shoe-horn all these sentences into a small number of categories, and then invent rules about the sequence of tenses.