Well then it asserts that they were all fake.  It is no more possible to provide evidence of a fake than it is of Santa Claus.  The Saddam claim makes it clear what the problem is - people make this stuff up.  Any evidence that Saddam's son had one much less used it?  All sorts of bullshit claims have been made about Saddam, I notice few people have even tried to prove them.  How can I present evidence of a fake if they are all fake?  I can't prove Santa Claus does not exist either.  The onus of proof in an encyclopedia ought to be on the people making a positive claim - and if no one can find evidence of its existence it ought to go.  The same way there is no page on the existence of unicorns.  The spikes thing is clear an ex posto rationalisation as there are no existing models (and probably never were) and what evidence there is is that the spikes did not move.  People, for some reason, want to believe this is true and are very very resistent to the truth.  Wikipedia should not be in the business of peddling half-baked urban legends.  It ought to go entirely, but failing that it ought to be modified until such time someone can provide evidence of its existence.  Which I suspect no one will.