On globe earth, why does whatever causes the tides have zero influence upon much smaller bodies of water?

If the pull of the moon (as globe-tards believe) can influence the massive oceans so constantly and profoundly, how does it pass over lakes innumerable and exert absolutely no influence at all, not even a ripple?

Ok less start at the beginning. Do flat earthers and glob-tards agree that there are ocean tides, but not river, lake or smaller body of water tides? Glob-tards say that these tides happen because of the pull of the moon and some effect of the sun? What would flat earthers say?

That's a good question and I have no idea but for an actual experiment, who will replicate the 24/7 spinning ball to gauge how much water is left on it after a week or a year?

Any such ball would not have the mass to keep water under its gravitational influence. 

My intent was for others to go take a look outside to see for themselves instead of just assuming what videos made by flat earthers say.
The water and earth's gravity would also need to be scaled down, and the experiment would need to be isolated from earth's gravity. It would be easy enough to make a globe model spin at a scaled down "1000mph" , which would simply look like 1 rotation (360 degrees) per 24hrs. Not even the dust would get flung off it at that speed.

I would really like to see that experiment.  A basketball rotating for 24 hours, one revolution, with 70% water to start.  You're thinking the water would hug the ball?  How would you scale back the gravity?

As a "globe-tard", I don't understand how a flat-earther can look up into the sky with a telescope, see that all of the other planets as being round, and then think that only the earth is flat.  

As a "globe-tard", I don't understand how a flat-earther can look up into the sky with a telescope, see that all of the other planets as being round, and then think that only the earth is flat.

Round can also apply to a flat circle, so I'll assume you mean spherical.

When the sky is observed through a ground telescope, as the following video



All you can say with certainty about the observation is that a circular light source was observed. You can't infer a spherical shape for certain without another point of view.

Take the attached image as my point: Is it a hollow inverted pyramid, a regular pyramid with the peak towards the screen, or a 2D square with a cross in it? You wouldn't know unless you observed it from a substantially different point of view, and no one on Earth has shown that for the alleged "planets" (they are just stars)

I would really like to see that experiment.  A basketball rotating for 24 hours, one revolution, with 70% water to start.  You're thinking the water would hug the ball?  How would you scale back the gravity?

The ball would need enough mass to effectively attract the water molecules, and it would need to be far enough away from other bodies (the earth) so as to not be affected by their gravity.

Yes, the gravity needs to be scaled "back" with the size of the ball. Basically if you scaled the earth down, all atoms would scale down with it, increasing the density of the earth and of the water its gravity attracts.

If the earth really were a ball with its own gravitational pull, floating in space where external gravitational forces are for most intents and purposes negligible regarding things close to the earth, there would be no way for the water to just fall off, because there is no significant gravity pulling from wherever you decide "below" is.
The problem with the basketball experiment is that there is the earth, a giant powerful source of gravity, pulling the water off the basketball. It would be like trying to play with magnets next to one giant magnet such that nothing ever stays in place.

For the best chance of success, I'd recommend putting a powerful magnet inside the ball, and letting it attract ferrofluid, which would spread out over the ball. This would simulate gravity. 

Round can also apply to a flat circle, so I'll assume you mean spherical.

When the sky is observed through a ground telescope, as the following video



All you can say with certainty about the observation is that a circular light source was observed. You can't infer a spherical shape for certain without another point of view.

Take the attached image as my point: Is it a hollow inverted pyramid, a regular pyramid with the peak towards the screen, or a 2D square with a cross in it? You wouldn't know unless you observed it from a substantially different point of view, and no one on Earth has shown that for the alleged "planets" (they are just stars)

Well, if you make enough observations throughout the night and day over enough days, you will see that the sun rotates like a spinning globe, so does jupiter, and you will see the moons of jupiter orbiting around it. The fact that you can see something on the sun or a planet rotate to the far side and reappear again as it rotates back into view, suggests they are globes. It may even be possible to detect the change in size of jupiter's moons as they get closer and further. 

Is this comment serious? Never did we claim the earth is one of many planets.

We are Geocentrists first of all. Second of all, we see the planets as luminaries like the stars, they were originally called wandering stars.

What do you think Mars looks like?  With a telescope you can see that Mars has two objects that go around it.  At different times of the year these objects are seen in different places. They call these objects appearing to go around Mars moons. Why do you simplify the terminology to just luminaries?