It would take great means in 2025 to convince a very dangerous enemy that they had succeeded in a hit against someone when they hadn't. But the question presumes those great means, and it's not theoretically wrong to let a declared enemy self-deceive in wartime, so let's analyze.

The problems of identity relocation are much greater than initially believed, as folks like Agatha Christie found out when they tried it for shorter or longer periods. WRP lore is that one cannot contact any prior relation whatsoever, one is dead to all their past; plus one has a new (fictional) life that one must memorize like one memorized their (lost) life and be ready instantly to recall. The unrelenting cognitive dissonance is much more stressful than the peaceful idea that a "new identity" means release from the past. Plus, when your past life is checked up on people can begin to suspect, and cases can be made against you that your name isn't really Vincent Fusca, and you have to live with that shadow around you if people interested in the disappearance of the original you try to track you down. And the hit team might connect the dots too and come after you again, much easier because you're now a new nobody. Flying would be impossible if rumors began to swirl, for instance, due to risk.

The alternative is continuing to live with the threats, and presumably to continue doing the things that initiate the threats. Now you've saved a tremendous amount of resources that would've been devoted to creating your new identity (surgery, many fictional documents, all the minutiae of the fake hit itself, etc.); but you need to continue using them on security in this case. The big benefit is that you can continue your work, and depending on your enemy you might get past the threat someday. But many are able to declare their biggest life work sufficiently done before they die naturally, and they might look for such a means of escape from threat, and they don't mind if people ask if this is a recent photo of Amelia Earhart or not.

The question is often asked in microcosm online, because it's a very common concern whether one can return to places one has been banned and carry on one's "work" there without being identified as the prior account holder. IMHO either you can't do the same work the same way, or your work will be diluted from the constant trolling you as the former account. So that's not sufficient reason to return given the platform controllers; instead you would be indicated either to go elsewhere (of many many wheres) or to negotiate insofar as possible while identifying yourself with the banned account. But IRL it's easier to do a quiet work without being identified as the same as the last person doing it, while it's harder to navigate as a totally new identity that coincidentally looks and acts a lot like the old one.

Now you ask about me. I'm happy that nobody has doxed the Swamp Rangers in their existence since 2021-01-01, and in a sense I entered a new identity when I took on their voice at that time. I didn't need to do the extra legwork of leaving my old identity behind, but I've sought to keep my public persona generic; and that's a good life too. So my considered answer is that if I had the bankroll for doing it perfectly (and that would include certain decisions about close family, and about the means of the cover story); and if several factors of conscience were present (real war, real enemy, credible threats, ability to leave identity and work behind, strategic reason for repositioning); I would still face a bigger conscience issue, that of letting the mainstream (not just the enemy) believe something I know to be a lie. There are ways that I might use channels to give "legally accurate" information (i.e. that sounds like I'm dead but when analyzed for legal purposes actually admits I might not be); they might be pursued morally but I don't like them much. Anyone not in the loop, including extended family and friends and church, potentially hundreds for most people and myriads of acquaintances, would be deceived and saddened by my false news. So despite my temptation to pull the "trigger" if all the other factors were present, the issue of finding a moral way to leave my past relations without a deceptive presentation in the light of my wartime-based decision would be exceedingly steep to uncover, and without seeing a clear resolution on first consideration I'd end up saying the answer is still "not yet".

This exercise leaves me further recognizing the unsung military heroes who must not only make life-and-death risky decisions but also struggle with issues of conscience between a commanded path and the fact that the public is left in the dark along with the enemy. It's one thing to say to my nation, your army can't talk about its movements, and then for my army to leave false comms for only my enemy to intercept. It's another thing to do something destructive (with collateral risk) and then to use plausible deniability to leave my nation in the dark about what I've done. Evidence indicates that decision has been made often and not always with the best result for the nation. The only out would be that "someday the truth can be told" with the idea that some trigger, either the JFK files release date or the eradication of an enemy, will allow the growing suspicions of the public about a deceptively coded event to be allayed. The secret carried to (anyone's) deathbed only makes it harder for the historians to speak with confirmed certainty, but they can still conclude the details of the secret with relative certainty sooner or later. Certainly it's much easier to make such decisions to deceive promiscuously if one is not steeped in conscientiousness and if long practice and institutional power put pressure on one to so proceed. "Absolute" power corrupts "absolutely". Therefore the times this tactic has actually worked for good might be limited to when Jehu misled the people in order to slaughter the baalists. In fiction, the Mission Impossible team might get away with tweaking a difference between real events and perceived history, but in reality any general or spy must wrestle with conscience.

Therefore if someone has made the decision described in OP, it's possible it was a good decision all told, and I must give such person the benefit of doubt in the absence of clear contraindication. But I would need significant convincing if it was to be my decision. Oh, and Frank Turek is intimately trustworthy, when he says Kirk is absent from the body and present with the Lord he's telling the truth.

u/Ffairchild u/joanofsnark u/Joys1Daughter u/Vapourface

Add: The mystery audio at Elizabeth's funeral was transcribed as "That death is irreversible and the fact that she's trapped." It echoes the Hunter-sounding audio at Biden's "inauguration" that admitted taking a plea deal. The royalty has many arcane traditions, including celebrating the monarch's official birthday always on whatever day around June is likely to be good weather, instead of his/her actual birthday. It would be understandable if Elizabeth abrogated all royal rights including rights of families in favor of a quiet retirement and to preclude the risk of a grisly medically detailed death, or other embarrassment. She was also in a position to enact almost the scenario you describe if she felt the need. But the audio suggests that those who knew or guessed the secret had one last laugh, and a bit of a blackmail hold, and were carrying out an indirect way of assuaging their consciences about informing the populace at large. (Add blackmail by assistants to the risks of relocation; one would presume that having sufficient "means" this could be dealt with by using only a totally trustworthy team.)

Often the problem is stated in reverse, namely keeping your image going with a double in the event the real you becomes incapacitated in a way you don't want to admit if it should happen. Same problems BTW, plus the fact that you don't get the benefit of the actions of the double (you're incapacitated) and are merely insuring against a negative perception instead of planning a positive (say "martyr") perception. So the answer is the same: it's conceivable, but "not for most people" even if they had the means, and would require great leaps of conscience for those with strong moralities.