Just to add my useless $0.02...
Like Sheila, I couldn't figure out why Lois would be so much more "believeable" as Lois than Clark would be of Clark. When I read it, it was sort of funny, but I found it odd, and then sad. For the whole "making the real man less than he is" thing. With all the holo-vids (or whatever they are) you would think that people would look at the pictures, and then at Clark and think "WOW! They are identical!" Not, "Wow! He *almost* looks like the real thing." I'm assuming the holo-vids are "real-life" in size and they are accurate. With the level of detail (ie the initials on the bed) they seem to strive for, it's a good assumption.
Also, Silas is a direct member of the family. I would assume he has seen lots and lots of pictures/video/whatever that the general public isn't likely to see. Of course, this is 200 years into the future, so maybe he isn't that interested in a dead relative?
Finally, this Lois - the S1 Lois - is a Lois that didn't really exist all that long. Lois changed as she and Clark grew closer. Probably more than Clark changed. I'm not sure how long Lois was Mad Dog Lane, but even after only a year into the partnership with Clark, Lois was a different person. I'm sure her infamous temperment(sp?) continued to be a part of her throughout her life, but it would have become more controlled, and refined. Would history (and relatives) remembers the Mad Dog Lane that existed for, I'm guessing 5 years or so, or the Lois Lane who was the life partner of Clark Kent?
Anyway, not sure why, but it seemed odd that Clark was thought of as "less" than the original, while Lois seemed "exactly" right.
