What was Otto Titzling's day job?

Factual Questions
1

Martin Gardner in Time Travel and Other Mathematical Bewilderments makes a passing comment that–while acknowledging his non-involvement in the “invention” of the bra–says that he was indeed a real person. True? If so, who or what was he? It is possible that it’s not true, and that Gardner–the man who gave a compelling counter-example “disproving” the four-color-map theorem–is pulling our collective leg, as he has been known to do?

2

He was a diesel fitter.

3

He went insane and they put him in the booby hatch.

4

The Titzling story was a fabrication by the same people who wrote the biography of Thomas Crapper as inventor of the toilet. Crapper did exist, but Titzling did not. Because the author wrote both a history and a satire, people confuse the history for the satire and vice versa.

Here is Snope’s information.

5

I think Cecil at http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_377.html makes it clearer than Snopes that Flushed With Pride was a takeoff, not an actual history.

6

Thanks, Doc. I think you have the best answer. You not only gave his day job, but gave the his quote as soon as he looked upon his invention: “diesel fitter.”

Well, RealityChuck, are you saying that Martin Gardner is wrong, or he’s being frivolous. Here is what he says:
It turns out, though, that Thomas Crapper and Otto Titzling were real people, and neither of Reyburn’s books is entirely a hoax.

7

alconist – Cecil later revised his opinion (read the entire article you quoted). Crapper did exist, though the biography is not entirely accurate.

Mjollnir – Gardner is often frivolous. Ever see his stories in Asimov’s? And, according to UrbanLegends.com, Gardner’s column (originally written on April 1, BTW) says that Titzling was a hoax and that shows that Crapper was a hoax, too. Faulty logic on Martin’s part.

Nearly all sources I can find say Titzling never existed. Those that say otherwise consistenly quote from the book “Bust-Up” by Wallace Reybourn – the source of the hoax.

8

I found your Martin Gardner quote in the Alt.usage.english FAQs.. Further down is this quote from the Mirriam-Webster Editorial Department:

9
  1. This thread is not about Thomas Crapper. I already know the story.
  2. I had already read the snopes site referring to the non-existence of Otto Titzling, and therein was the basis for the question.
  3. At no point have I indicated that I believed Otto Titzling had anything to do with the development/invention of the bra.
  4. Gardner’s column ran on April 1, 1975. The part that I quoted was not part of the column, but an addendum included in the aforementioned book (1988), in which Gardner explains each and every one of his April Fools articles. It would seem ironic, and out of character even for Gardner, to throw in a gratuitous wild goose chase, when he is in the process of explaining his previous wild goose chase.
  5. Given the choice of which to believe, I would be more likely inclined to believe an updated article (concerning the existence of Mr Titzling) explaining his hoax column, than his original retraction where he said it was a fabrication by Mr Reyburn.
  6. Have a nice day!