The ‘cruise ship’ hypothesis has been rebutted, mainly on the calculated elevation of the object, which is based on video fragments where the object and the moon were visible simultaneously and the moon’s position and angular size could be used as a yardstick (plus 7 additional counter arguments).
The author of that debunking you linked to reckoned that the Moon was 12.3 degrees above the horizon at Latitude: 41° 01' 15.89" N Longitude: 28° 28' 49.19" E at 3:06 a.m. local time on May 17, 2009. And that is correct. And he uses the angular size of the Moon to estimate how many degrees the Moon was above the UFO. A valid method.
But there are problems he did not address.
The moon in a zoomed in shot.
There's a problem with this zoomed out shot. If this is the moon, and it is, where is Jupiter?
Jupiter was just a few degrees away from the Moon that night. Where is it in the video?
As already pointed out in post #24, in an earlier part of the video there are two artificial lights below the Moon. You can even see the pole one of them is sitting on.
But by using that same method the debunking author used, we can see that the Moon was about 4 to 5 degrees above these artificial lights, just 5 minutes earlier.
According to this, the Moon was 4.4 degrees above the UFO, and the UFO was 7.9 degrees above the horizon. But 4.4 degrees is pretty close to how far the Moon is above those artificial lights - and probably pretty much the same number of degrees above the horizon.
Several problems are resolved if we assume that the camera clock was not set correctly. Let's wind Stellarium back to the time the rising Moon was 4.4 degrees above the horizon. It turns out that it was 2:18 a.m., and Jupiter was low enough to be hidden by ground clutter. (Also see post #14)
This solves the problem of missing Jupiter, why the Moon is so low above the artificial lights, and puts the UFO on the horizon.
What remains is why those artificial lights are missing from the later part of the video. We can assume that they were masked or the camera position was changed.
As already pointed out, the Moon in this scenario would be over the land. Where are all the other ground lights you'd expect in the suburbs of Istanbul? I'm guessing that they were masked by moving the camera behind a wall or foliage to get the shot just right. No reason to assume deception. Just getting a better shot. That's what I would do.
BTW, the author of that cruise ship debunking doesn't have the stars and planets "turned on" in Stellarium. That's why the Jupiter problem isn't a problem in his scenario.