Reduce it and you will see what I mean, you provide an example of an experienced effect, say a picture of a rose, or in my example gravitation, then you provide possibilities resulting in that picture and omit any criteria of parsimony or evidence and thus allow for infinite validity of any possibility that can as a hypothesis explain the observable effect, this logic also allows for a gravity monster providing the effects of gravity.
However in your examples there is no experience because they are not experiments, you did not actually do the experiment with the image of the rose, ergo there is no evidence or experience involved in them, just abstract conjecture, which again allows the concept of an invisible undetectable gravity monster producing gravity to be considered valid because your hypothesis is this:
if a hypothesis is consistent with experience, then it is as valid as any other hypothesis that is equally consistent.
And since the experience of gravity is simply the effect, then any random hypothesis that can explain gravity is valid according to your logic, moreover you allow for infinite equally valid hypothesis, which while abstractly true fails when you introduce evidence to the concept. Experience is not evidence per say, for example the experience of gravity is evidence of gravity but not evidence of the cause of gravity, thus a lack of experience of an undetectable invisible monster causing gravity does not contradict the experience of gravity and is according to your logic a valid hypothesis, one among an infinite set.
The problem is that your statement allows non-evidenced hypothesis that can theoretically explain experienced phenomena to be considered valid, like gravity monsters or wizards, provided that those hypothesis can explain what is experienced. In your example you provide contrasting means of achieving the experienced effects, in each case your causation of the effect is undetectable to the observer, this is no different than the gravity monster. In practice if there is no evidence to support a hypothesis then it is not valid, despite being able to explain the experience and being consistent with the effect.
So while in the abstract the claim:
if a hypothesis is consistent with experience, then it is as valid as any other hypothesis that is equally consistent.
is logically true, it is not effectively true or meaningful or useful beyond mental exercise.
In the case of the rose image, there is no evidence for any of the hypothesis you give and thus they are all invalid, this can be interpreted as equally valid, for they are all equally invalid, but because they lack evidence, ergo there is nothing in your case to support the conclusion of one other another, then in practice they all become invalid as hypothesis, they are all equally meaningless because they are all unsubstantiated by the example.
regardless of if a hypothesis is consistent with experience, it is as invalid as any other hypothesis (that is equally consistent) until indicated by some measure of evidence