How is it possible for two historians to study identical sources yet create two different historical interpretation of the same event?

They could have differing opinions which could cause their interpretations to be biased.

Everyone looks at everything from a different viewpoint. After hearing specific historical events let’s say the holocaust everybody has a different analysis. In some events like Native American times, we have not had contact with people who lived that exact lifestyle, leading us to all make random conclusions. In many different cases of history, there is no correct answer. A lot of history is theorizing different information and putting it together.