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 Saddams 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 cant 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 halfbaked 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