Manuel writes rubbish. He's like someone writing about the exact floor plan of a flying saucer.You really don't like him, obviously, that's (at least) the second ad hominem attack you've made on him.
Manuel also claimed that the sun was a past supernova but astronomers say supernovas do not become objects like our sun.Science is a method, not a body of knowledge. If everything were known with absolute certainty, if knowledge were complete, there would be no need to continue to find things out using the scientific method. Manuel et al have used data that others have ignored or been baffled by to construct a theory.
But it wasn't his contention just that iron was present but that iron predominates and is the major source of the sun's energy........obviously wrong.Why obviously wrong? Because you say so? You've also stated that iron can't be in the Sun because of the temperature. I guess the Earth can't have iron in its core, and all those old lava floes are entirely iron-free. And since hydrogen remains a gas until it gets near absolute zero, obviously conditions in the Sun are far too hot for hydrogen as well.
But investigate on your own: If the sun is predominately iron (as Manuel asserts), what does the iron fission or fuse into to produce the sun's energy? Or is there some other process going on to produce energy? What produces a supernova and how does its size affect its fate? If the sun really is predominately iron, by weight or volume, would its size and mass be different than if it were mostly hydrogen and helium? In broad terms, how would the orbit of the planets differ from one case when compared to the other?
The answer to these questions are easily found and the answers would demonstrate Manuel's theory is based upon a false premise.