Tides are discussed in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm
The evidence seems to suggest the earth is flat.
Galileo also did not believe tides were driven by the moon, but instead down to 'sloshing' of the sea. He likened it to standing water in the hull of a barge when the barge begins to move or slow down.
I did not read everything provided in the link. I have noticed a lot of evidence provided as proof of a flat Earth no data is provided but just observations and I can usually skim and find one or two things that are not proof without having to read the whole thing. Confirmation bias on my part? Could be, but it also saves me some time. Skimming usually allows me to find something to at least give some discredit to the author and notice the lack of understanding of a RE model. IMHO if you want to disprove something that is generally accepted you need an understanding of what made people come to believe it.
"How, then, when the waters are drawn up by the moon from their bed, and away from the earth's attraction,--which at that greater distance from the centre is considerably diminished, while that of the moon is proportionately increased--is it possible that all the waters acted on should be prevented leaving the earth and flying away to the moon?"
The above shows an extreme lack of understanding of gravity and how we are told it works.
As shown by what I consider a very simple and easy animation to understand in the link I provided:
Neap and spring tides occur twice a month.
Neap tides occur when the sun and moons gravity are pulling at a 90 degree angle relative to each other.
Spring tides occur when their gravity is pulling in the same direction or directly opposed.
Not displayed in the animation:
Spring tides are higher when the moon's and sun's gravity are pulling in the same direction and lower when they pull from opposite directions.
"The people are under a great mistake who believe that the substance of the water moves to any considerable depth in a storm at sea. It is only the form or shadow which hurries along like a spirit, or like a thought over the countenance of the 'great deep,' at the rate of some forty miles an hour. Even when the 'Flying Dutchman' is abroad, the great mass of water continues undisturbed and nearly motionless a few feet below the surface."
So included in the evidence is that wind above the surface of the water only can affect the ocean to a certain depth. Something already known and studied. What does this have to do with disproving that gravitational forces are what causes tides?
"It is recorded, that an ancient philosopher in a small boat allowed himself to be carried to sea by an ebb tide, hoping thereby to discover the source of the tides. After drifting many miles, the boat came to a state of rest; and after a short time he found himself being carried back to the shore. He had only been taken out by the ebb, and brought again to land by the flood. He had discovered nothing, and seeing no hope of doing so by repetitions of such a voyage, he destroyed himself by jumping into the sea."
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_currents/media/supp_cur02a.html"The velocity of a flood-tide increases as it approaches land.
PROOF. Actual experiment. It is also a fact well known to sailors engaged in coasting service."
Narrower width/depth causes water to pile up, it can not compress as pointed out in the evidence provided in the link, and moves faster. Go to a river nearest you to witness this yourself if you happen to live near one that has different depth and widths.
"FACT 10. The times of ebb and flood tide at any given part are not regularly exact, often being from half-an-hour to one hour or more before and after the "Port Establishment time."
I use tide charts rather frequently as do other people. They have been accurate I think what is not being taken into account is tides do not just happen instantly. The prediction is for when it will be the lowest or highest. For some reason I know what the current will be doing when I leave port using the predictions provided. I have yet run across a time where the prediction said the tide should be rising and ran across the current going out to sea when leaving port.
Seems like most evidence provided to prove the Earth is flat it lacks supporting Data and fails to take into account anything that can be observed that may prove the conclusions wrong.
If you can come up with counters to the above maybe I will read the whole thing. From my experience so far when I have read entire articles, observations and watched entire videos everything presented has been answerable within the RE model. The ones that were not were only so because some important data was not revealed. ie: observer height, distance, target height, tide height, etc.
If the assumption the tides are caused by something and that something is used to predict them reliably then that is a pretty good validation for the assumption.
Edit: Forgot to add this why are you using observations by Galileo? He made some very good observations about a heliocentric system around the late 1500's and early 1600's. He came up with the best theory he could with the data and observations he had at the time. He was followed by Isaac Newton who put us on the road to discovering that answer of what causes tides.