The example is irrelevant. You could have two people standing next to each other when the tree falls and you would still end up with different histories; about the only thing they would agree upon is perhaps that a tree fell in the abstract. Without a perfectly synchronous experiential context up until that point, there is no perfect understanding of each others experience of the event. Another persons perception of an event may not be the same as my perception of an event if I experienced it myself. I cannot trust that another persons perception will accurately convey the actual event because the context of interpretation may not have an equivalent mapping in my brain.
If I had written the history of the facts presented in the example I cited, I would have stated that 4 people saw a tree fall to the ground. The tree fell to the north. That is my interpretation of the facts which were at hand.