Mad Voynich theory #15,403 (and counting)

[crezac]

Here's a half formed idea that I'm going to throw amongst you all to see what response we get.

What is the Voynich text is nonsense - but the image aren't?

I've just finished re-Reading Carruthers art of memory and her ideas on memonics have stuck.

So imagine that every single image is encoded, and possibly the labels, into a mnemonic structure. A sort of visual shorthand. But the bulk of the text is filler to "throw you off the scent".

Possible? Of course it is. Probable? Hmm.

It's equally probable that the text encodes information but not the same information that the images encode, and a bit more probable that the images are there to "throw you off the scent" of what the text is about. If you have a system of encoding information and a place to encode it you are probably going to make efficient use of your recording media, especially with a system as inefficient as writing or drawing.  The need to "throw you off the scent" assumes you have a context for understanding the information.  I don't see any indication that the context or content of VMS is in any way intuitive or obvious. 

It's reasonable to assume that the whole thing is a hoax.  It's also reasonable to assume that the whole thing is a meaningful document.  Actually proving either of these views is going to require more work.  If you want to assume a split document you can work on proving that the text is meaningless or that the images have meaning, but I don't think the idea is really helpful.  First because there isn't any way to prove the text is meaningless.  Second because so many people have interpreted the images in so many ways that you will need to find an organizing principle for the information encoded in the images to get any consensus on what the deeper meaning is.