Take a look at the picture in my post, Cal. If it was skin that was the source...

...of ignition, how can there be separate fires at nose and tail, with unburned skin in between? Shall we imagine multiple independent points of ignition?

Short version: I think that single iconic picture proves graphically and at a glance that the skin-burn hypothesis is nonsense.

Personally, and strictly FWIW, I think that silly theory (which has been debunked in detail on far more elaborate grounds like the physics of flame propagation by many others) was only concocted by hyrogen advocates. But motives and agendas notwithstanding, nonsense it is and nonsense it remains.

Steve