Horse manure. Document actual observations/measurements which have "verified" this by "direct scientific observation" (that should keep you busy for a while), or retract it.
Actually, there is an aberration in the apparent position of the sun that is due to the finite speed of light, and the speed of the Earth with respect to the sun. It's called the Poynting-Robertson effect.
It's easy to see this effect when you're driving in a rainstorm or snowstorm. Even if the rain or snow is falling straight down with respect to the ground, in the frame of the car, it appears to be coming from a source located somewhere ahead of the car. In the car's frame of reference, the precipitation is falling in a slanted path.
If we assume that the precipitation takes 8.3 minutes to fall from cloud to ground, it's not a wrong point of view to say that the car "sees" the source of the rain where it used to be, 8.3 minutes before, even though a "stationary" observer will point in a different direction if asked to point to the source of the raindrops. The pedestrian will point straight up, while the driver will point forwards as well as upwards, but each really is pointing to the place in the clouds from which the future drops that hit them will come.
NOTO BENE that this has nothing to do with the motion of the sun, and everything to do with the motion of the Earth with respect to the sun, and the finite speed of light. The phrase "where the sun was located 8.3 minutes ago" makes sense only from the point of view of an observer; in this case the observer is the Earth. Further complicating the issue is that the Earth is travelling in a curved path about the sun; the direction of the Earth's motion does not stay constant over 8.3 minutes. That alone will cause a minor discrepancy between "where we see the sun" and "where the sun was 8.3 minutes ago".
This argument applies to the light from the sun, but does not apply to its gravitational field. If the driver passes a telephone pole and the observers are asked to point in the direction of the telephone pole, both will point straight upwards. Van Flandern will conclude from this that the telephone pole is falling infinitely fast, and Southack will chime in in agreement, but everyone else will agree that that doesn't make much sense.
Fair enough. For the little sense that it *does* make to Southack and perhaps Van Flandern, Southack would say that it would be due to the *concept* that perhaps Gravity and Light travel at, gasp, different speeds that would explain why the argument above applied to Light but not to Gravity.