OK Anons, tossin this one into the mix again. Got no replies last bread, but I think this could be a NOICE group effort Q is pointing us to…. I'll just make my case here and throw it out for ideas. Maybe some anons can step in and try to organize as that is not my forte… Basically, I suspect there might be some kind of structure to all of the "ignore spelling error/on the move" type posts.
First, let's take it is obvious that Q WAS telling Anons to skip looking for any simple meaning in a given post with a misspelling.
Next, the vast bulk of the posts saying "on the move" begin with a post on 12 Feb 2019, and the fact that a now well-known phrase was only so recently established might seem odd. Obviously, one use of this phrase was to create the impression that Q was actively travelling with POTUS, but I think we are now well beyond the point of thinking that Q is one dude dropping messages next to POTUS. This thing is YUGE, and I suspect there are NO spelling "mistakes".
Take a look at the FIRST post with "on the move", the "Follow Maria" post. In retrospect, it obviously has a double meaning. In the immediate post, Q writes "Maria" when he is referring to MARINA Abramovic. But then a few posts later he mentions a MARIA, and it turns out she is the crucial one there, since we are supposed to ultimately consider the fact that Maria Shicklgruber (Adolf's grandmother) had worked as a servant to a Rothschild. The upshot is that Q is UNDERMINING the claim that we should always ignore spelling errors when he tells us to, but perhaps pointing to the fact that they may matter in a BROADER context.
The SECOND post with "on the move" doesn't seem to fit the pattern. But I suspect it is meant as a clue to us NOW. Q is telling us to put our eyes on "On The Move".
Finally, the MOST RECENT use of "on the move" is the most complex. But first think back: most uses of "on the move" correspond to a case where Q has made an identifiable spelling error in a post. Now look at the graphic on the recent case. There doesn't seem to be any spelling error at all, but seemingly a grammar error. Q should have said "fewer than 10" since 10 is a discrete rather than a continuous quantity. One Anon caught this in reply to the "on the move" post.. (hmmm….), but most Anons missed it since Q has repeatedly made this "error". (I missed it…) But Q certainly KNOWS what the PROPER usage is here, and given the fact that Q repeatedly "ERRS" and yet is now seeming to point to the "error", I suspect this is NO COINCIDENCE. One upshot is that the "error" has NOTHING to do with being "on the move" since Q has REPEATEDLY made the same "error".
Now look at the line where Q tells us to look for keywords. We HAVE been seeing a ton of keywords since then, and all around. But… when Q said this "on the move" was by then ITSELF a keyword. I think this is ONE of the keywords Q is directing us to.
Now look at the post Q is replying to. I think Q is using this to tell us to use this immediate set of posts as an injunction to examine "on the move" and "error" posts within the context of the FULL set of Q posts.
Too many "coincidences" I think… I suspect there is something here, but I think this is really a project to get multiple eyes on…
(Nice doodle…)