The relationship between "truth" and "facts"

This is a philosophical discussion that has been going on in my mind lately and I would like some input from this community. I am not a philosopher so I am not sure if this is an issue that has been widely discussed but I think it is an important one and I have no idea how these terms are used by philosophers.<br><br>What I am trying to get to the bottom of is the relationship between "truth" and "facts." I'm sure most people in this sub, if not most people in general, would agree that they are the same thing. <br><br>I was in an argument with my uncle about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. My uncle said he believed the "official story" of the assassination was not true. I said the "official story" was that Oswald acted alone. My uncle said that while he accepted that as a fact, he did not accept it as the truth. I was confused by this and I asked for further clarification. He said he did not believe the "official story" was true, but he accepted that Oswald shot Kennedy. I asked if it made a difference and he said no, not really. But he said he wanted to make the distinction because he believed the "official story" was a narrative created by people with their own agendas. I said that I accepted it as a fact, and while I believed it was true, I did not necessarily believe that Oswald acted alone. He said we were essentially saying the same thing, but he made a distinction. <br><br>This made me think of the concept of "alternative facts" and how certain politicians have used it as a smokescreen to get around the truth. I am wondering if anyone here has heard of this kind of distinction before. Do philosophers make this distinction? If so, why? I don't understand why this distinction is important, but I don't know if it isn't. I would appreciate any input. <br><br>&#x200B;