On Dmitry A. Kuznetsov

clip_image001Gian Marco Rinaldi writes in a comment:

I have translated into English my 2002 inquest on Kuznetsov [pictured] , originally in Italian (a biography of Kuznetsov up to 2001 and an analysis of his papers from 1989 to 2000). Moreover I have published an account of my recent inquest on papers he published after 2002 (the latter do not concern the Shroud). Here is the link: La  Sindone  di  Torino Kuznetsov  special.

There is a lot there, enough to keep me busy for awhile.

12 thoughts on “On Dmitry A. Kuznetsov”

  1. Just being curious, what is Dmitry Kuznetsov’s otchestvo? The letter A. stands for what name of his father?

  2. Dan, thank you for giving notice to my previous comment. I add that in July the American
    magazine “The Scientist” has published two articles by Kerry Grens about Kuznetsov. In
    the first article Grens explains that Kuznetsov has been accused of scientific fraud:
    As an immediate consequence, Kuznetsov was expelled from his position as chief editor of
    two scientific journals, as told by Grens in her second article:
    Then Kuznetsov has sent three long letters to Grens that are published as comments under
    the latter article. I am preparing a counter-reply I will add to my page that you have already
    linked. I will also add a post-2002 biography of Kuznetsov where his amazing career is

    1. Louis: “Why waste time with him?”. So as to remind sindonologists how easily they can be fooled.

      1. Gian Marco, Yes, from that point of view one can only agree with you — only to a certain extent. Kouznetsov was an exception, and belongs to the past, and today it is not easy to expect people in the realm of Shroud studies to swallow anything that is proposed, even if it comes in peer-reviewed form.

      2. Louis: “Kouznetsov was an exception, and belongs to the past”. It would seem that in Italy he belongs to the present. From the website of Centro Internazionale di Sindonologia, Turin:
        “Recent experimental studies (by Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes in San Antonio (Texas) and by Dmitrij A. Kouznetsov and Andrej Ivanov in Moscow) have furthermore opened the sientific debate about the tissue dating once again, with results seeming to prove a possible and considerable chemical and biological contamination of the tissue…”
        In her website, Emanuela Marinelli has deleted the name of Kuznetsov but continues to quote his results as valid:
        7.3 – The fire and the biological patina
        The high temperature reached during the fire in Chambéry (the case with the Shroud burned during the fire on December 4, 1532) could have caused exchanges of isotopes increasing the radiocarbon, so that the material results in proportion “younger”.
        … In fact, the 1532 fire could have modified the quantity of radiocarbon in the Shroud, altering its dating.
        Bruno Barberis still refers to Kuznetsov in two 2010 books.

  3. Louis :
    Kouznetsov is irrelevant to Shroud studies, he was discarded long ago, so why waste time with him?

    Would that it were in the past.
    In another thread here, it was brought out the fellow was mentioned in a paper given by Marinelli in the 2012 Conference in Valencia as a legitimate source of information.
    It’s amazing how long the shadow of his fraud extends.

  4. Dan, thanks for posting up this article. Though it seems hard to believe, the fellow’s hoax continues to cited as legitimate research and I hope your contribution helps nullify the damage he’s done.

  5. Agreed, Pakeha, given the fact that he is said to have used someone else’s calculations and passed them as his own to write a paper.

  6. Agreed, Gian Marco, given what has been published about Kouznetsov in Shroud literature like newsletters, not papers, it would be wise to leave him out of any studies.

Comments are closed.