Need advice for testing of hypotheses related to the self-citation method

[oshfdk]

Said more simply: if one does not believe a priori that the VMS is a hoax, knowing A and B will not convince them.

I'm never sure how to determine these priors. How to visualize the meaning of "my probability of VMS being a hoax is less than 0.01%"? Is it like if we had 10000 different manuscripts showing the strange properties of VMS, you'd say only one of them is likely to be a hoax? I find this too low. Given that people are known to make hoaxes, even though I find it highly unlikely that VMS is a hoax, I would still put my a priori probability of a hoax somewhere close to 10%, that is, about 1 in 10 strange 240 pages long unembellished medieval manuscripts with weird drawings written in an unknown script that have resisted modern attempts of deciphering it for more than a century might be a hoax.

Which then would be: prob(hoax with T&T) = 0.5 * 0.1 / (0.5 * 0.1 + 0.01 * 0.9) ≈ 0.85

But somehow I'm still not convinced. 

(I think there is a typo there in your post, should be 0.0001 and 0.9999 in the denominator? It doesn't really change the result. I have no real experience with this formula, so maybe I don't understand something.)