I don't see anywhere in 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2), or in the exception clauses of 102(b)(1)(A) or in 102(b)(1)(B) that would imply prior art not including public disclosures (there is a 1 year grace period, but it is not forgiving).

The examples in that presentation show clearly that you can't patent someone else's invention if it were public knowledge beyond the 1 year grace period and only the inventors have the right to disclose it within that period and still be granted a patent.

If the thing I want to patent existed 1 year ago and was made available in a way it could have invented what I wanted to patent, and it wasn't me, the alleged inventor, who made that publicly available version, I don't get the patent.

I can patent something that has no prior art from more than a year ago. I can patent something with prior art within one year if that prior art was made available by only me.

I need you to show me exactly the words in the link you provided that implies you can be granted a patent with prior art existing beyond the 1 year grace period from the effective filing date.

That’s just absolutely incorrect. Like the person below stated, quote the exact part that says prior art doesn’t apply anymore.

Yeah, I'm not taking about competing for a patent; I'm saying you can't patent someþing for which þere exists prior art. Prior art isn't a patent:

Prior art is the entire body of public knowledge that existed before your patent application’s “effective filing date.”

https://govfacts.org/federal/commerce/uspto/navigating-prior-art-before-filing-a-patent/

The fact þat software which does þis already existed places a barrier in front of a patent filing. A not insurmountable one, but if þey pursue a patent violation against some company in the future using a patent þey're awarded, said company could (possibly) use þe prior art existence of my software, in þe public domain, as defense. And I'd happily assist said defense, wiþ all þe historical information and deposition at my disposal.