This was a fun read Georgina...
The key element is the incongruity where the analogy breaks down. Groucho Marx said "I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas; I'll never know." The first line makes sense, but in the following line the sense of things is reversed. Sort of like "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
I had an elephant in the room for one FQXi essay, and now here you have put him or her into the fridge. How that elephant got in the fridge I'll never know. But it's a joke because it sneaks up on you; you have to assume an elephant could get in the fridge to answer the question.
The huge footprint comment actually makes sense, and if you were to ask 'what would leave footprints when stepped in?' butter is a good answer. But of course an elephant is so much bigger than a mouse that it would squish the butter flat, however it would not fit in the fridge in the first place.
That kind of analogy speaks volumes about some of the incongruous juxtapositions with incompatible questions. H. Dieter Zeh asserted that Quantum Mechanics was easy to understand if you just accepted that there are no quantum leaps or particles, and that only the quantum wavefunction really exists at all.
But to abandon the sense that objects are real entirely seems too radical a step to make, in order to understand QM's reality. However; Zeh's greater distaste was for the more popular idea that QM only presents reality probabilistically. He detested that notion and liked to think in terms of absolutes, as do you.
I will come back to this, and I have also downloaded the 43 page RICP summary document from viXra, for reference. I may not agree, or see eye to eye with you, but I want at least to understand your view.
All the Best,
Jonathan