How do we know old historical records are fact? How do we know they aren’t made up stories or maybe just lies ?

"Old historical records" is kind of broad term. It could mean either archives (reports, administrative documents, birth certificat and the likes...), litterary sources (journals, annals, even fiction about "historical" events like the scandinavian sagas),press documents (newspapers, war correspondants reports...) and even oral testimonies (direct or reported in text). Or all of that.

For some, there is methods of check the authenticity, notably for most of the administrative sources : paper used, signatures, tracability, where it's kept and so on. Of course, the fact that a document is authentic, meaning it was indeed produce at a given time by an administration of some sort, doesn't mean that the document doesn't lie : A police report could be full of lies created by a corrupt cop.

Since your question is not very precise, I will just give you the general methodology used by historians to determine if a document is a viable source or not, if it's trustworthy or not.

When confronted to a source of any kind, as an historian you have to check several aspect :

What is the document ? Is it a official report, a work of fiction, a private letter ? Who is it written to ? Is it public or is it private ? Who were likely to read it when it was produced ?
When was the document produced ? Was it written at the time of the fact, or some time after ? Is it a direct information (the authors saw something and tells about it) or is it indirect (the author quote or use some other sources that was talking about the event) ?
Who is the author ? Is he known, and if he is, did he produce other sources ? Is he considered trustworthy, or has he produced sources that are definitly lies ?
Is the text we have the original, or a copy (or a copy of a copy of a copy) that could possibly have been altered by various copists ?

That's just the general questions you have to ask yourself. Once you did, you have a first idea of how much you can trust a source. But that's not all. After that, you have to reflect on what your source is saying. And that's the heart of it, because it's need to be done for every kind of sources, and allows you to determine if a source, even produced by a trustworthy author, is accurate or not.

First, you use common sens : Is what is said possible and plausible ? Is there inconsistencies in the text ?
Second, is the text the only source that talk about the event, or is there other sources that talk about the same thing ? You then cross-reference the information, to determine what is the most likely to be true.
Finaly, is the text oriented and/or has a political goal, like descrediting a monarch ? Because most sources don't lie just to make a joke to future historian. They lie for a reason in their own time.

With all of that, you should have a precise enough picture of how trustworthy is the source, and how likely what it says is to be true. But keep in mind that, sometime... There is just no way to know for sure. Most of the time, historian are sure enough that a source is accurate when they use it. And when they are not sure, they say it, and take the uncertainty into account ("according to that source, such and such happened, but we have no other sources about that event, so it's likely/unlikely to be true given X and Y reason").

But it's sometime difficult to be sure. Plus some sources are subject to interpretation. Wich lead to various debates among historian, about how to interprete such or such sources. That's why history is such a vivid field : newly found sources that contradicts other sources, considered true until then can revolutionize the way we see it.