Nesnel rapor kaydın sahte olduğunu kanıtladı.

The sentence follows a very common Turkish pattern:

Subject + embedded clause + main verb

Breakdown:

• Nesnel rapor = objective report
• kaydın sahte olduğunu = that the recording was/is fake
• kanıtladı = proved

So the whole sentence is literally something like:

The objective report proved [the recording’s being fake].

That middle part, kaydın sahte olduğunu, is an embedded clause acting as the direct object of kanıtladı.

There is no separate word for that here.

In English, we say:

• The report proved that the recording was fake.

In Turkish, this kind of that-clause is often expressed with a nominalized clause instead of a separate conjunction. That is what kaydın sahte olduğunu is doing.

So Turkish often uses structure rather than a standalone word to express English that.

Because it is the subject of the embedded nominalized clause.

In Turkish, when a clause is built with endings like -DIK or related forms, the subject inside that clause usually appears in the genitive.

So:

• kayıt = the recording
• kaydın = of the recording / the recording’s

Here:

• kaydın sahte olduğunu literally means something like the recording’s being fake

This is a very standard pattern in Turkish:

• Ali’nin geldiğini gördüm = I saw that Ali came
• filmin güzel olduğunu düşünüyorum = I think that the film is good
• kaydın sahte olduğunu kanıtladı = it proved that the recording was fake

Because kayıt is one of the nouns that undergoes consonant softening before a vowel-initial suffix.

So:

• base form: kayıt
• with a vowel-starting suffix: kayd-

That gives:

• kaydın = of the recording
• kaydı = the recording as a definite object

This kind of change is common in Turkish with some nouns:

• kitap → kitabı
• ağaç → ağacı
• kayıt → kaydı / kaydın

Olduğunu comes from olmak = to be / to become, and here it is part of a nominalized clause.

A useful breakdown is:

• ol- = be / become
• -duk / -dık / -dik / -dük = a clause-forming ending
• -u = 3rd person possessive marker
• -nu = accusative marker

So olduğunu is roughly:

that it is / that it was / its being

In this sentence:

• sahte olduğunu = that it is fake / that it was fake

Because English and Turkish package this idea differently, it is often best to learn olduğunu as a very common way to say that something is/was.

Because the entire embedded clause is the direct object of kanıtladı.

The thing that was proved is:

• kaydın sahte olduğunu

So Turkish marks that clause as the object.

You can think of it like this:

• Nesnel rapor [kaydın sahte olduğunu] kanıtladı.
• The objective report proved [that the recording was fake].

That final -nu on olduğunu helps show that the whole clause is what was proved.

Good question. In a simple sentence, Turkish does not need olmak:

• Kayıt sahte. = The recording is fake.

But when Turkish turns that idea into an embedded clause like that the recording is fake, it usually needs a verbal base that can take the clause endings. That is why olmak appears:

• kaydın sahte olduğunu

So:

• simple statement: Kayıt sahte.
• embedded clause: kaydın sahte olduğunu

This is very normal with adjective predicates in Turkish.

Not necessarily in the same way English past tense works.

Although the form contains -DIK-type morphology, in sentences like this olduğunu often corresponds to English:

• that it is
• or that it was

depending on context.

Here the main verb is past:

• kanıtladı = proved

So natural English usually becomes:

• The objective report proved that the recording was fake.

But Turkish is not simply saying a straightforward past tense equivalent of was here. It is using a standard embedded-clause form.

Turkish has no articles exactly like English the and a/an.

So nesnel rapor can mean:

• the objective report
• an objective report

Context tells you which one is meant.

If the meaning shown to the learner uses the objective report, that is perfectly natural. But without context, Turkish itself does not force that distinction here.

Yes. Turkish word order is flexible, although the neutral order is usually:

Subject + object + verb

So this sentence is neutral and natural:

• Nesnel rapor kaydın sahte olduğunu kanıtladı.

But you could also move parts around for emphasis, for example:

• Kaydın sahte olduğunu nesnel rapor kanıtladı.

That gives more focus to kaydın sahte olduğunu.

The most important thing is that the main verb kanıtladı usually stays near the end.

In Turkish, adjectives normally come before the noun and do not agree for gender or number.

So:

• nesnel rapor = objective report
• nesnel raporlar = objective reports

The adjective nesnel stays the same.

This is much simpler than in many European languages: no masculine/feminine agreement, and no plural agreement on the adjective.