that smell, it could be what we ve all been calling for days now the blob or the blobs, but cnn s leyla santiago reports the first thing she learned, whatever you do, don t call this blob-like mass of blobbish stuff floating in the great big blobs up to 60 miles in the ocean a blob. it s thick. in the summertime builds up and smells terrible. reporter: joe kaplan captured these images about a week ago on this beach he walks several times a week. i was shocked when i saw it that day where it wasn t even spring yet, still winter, which is very unusual. this is about a 5,000-mile long reporter: professor shallman who is one of the leading experts on what many have referred to as a massive blob of seaweed heading to florida s coast. fair to call it a blob? no. reporter: okay. i ll never call that a blob.
giant blobs of seaweed. some of the strands are up to 60 miles long, stretching over a giant swath of ocean over 5,000 miles from the coast of africa to the gulf of mexico, globs turned up in florida and also in mexico and some have come ashore in barbados. look at that. here s the problem. when the stuff washes up, it rots and it smells and jimmy buffet will never ever write a song about it. turbulent times with air travel starts right now. 1943, 35018. four left. far left.
the morgan stanley client experience? listening more than talking, and a personalized plan to guide you through a changing world. all right, this is for fans of jaws to. just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water if you do, you might run into something bigger than a great white shark, by miles. big enough to be seen from space. giant blobs of seaweed. some of the strands are up to 60 miles long stretching over a giant swath of ocean more than 5000 miles from the coast of africa to the gulf of mexico. blobs of it have already turned up in florida, and also in mexico, and some have come ashore in barbados. look at that! this is the problem, when
shooter or the russians who fired most likely fired the weapon could tell. i mean, that is tough to debate. at range, what kind of what they could see, what they couldn t see. they might have just been able to see a few blobs in the distance and decided to fire. right. just add this context, so everyone understands, witnesses who spoke to cnn describe the attack as a prime example of russia targeting medics or the double taps. they hit a target. they wait a few minutes for first responders and hit the same spot again. obviously here they didn t exactly hit the same spot. they wait hit the vehicle that had pulled up. but, does this when you put it all together and your investigation sort of frame by frame, does that sound like what happened? i think judging where in the city that this strike took place, two miles behind front lines, it was an elevated position, it was obviously a target of opportunity for any russians that were observing the area. the fact they could see the
and just understand, thomas, from what i understand from this video, he pulls up in that makeshift ambulance, along with other medics, because there is been an incident. someone was hit. they went over to help them. this happens and then the strike happens. after the strike, there s the sound of incoming shelling as the camera continues to roll for 20 minutes. this is the context, before and after. when you say guided, okay, that means it was aimed. but then there is the question of intent, is there any way that the people who aim to the missile did not know who they were aiming at? these were medics helping ukrainian civilians. so, pete reed s vehicle, the white van that was targeted, it is not pictures taken prior to that event show that it did have a red cross. but there are roughly 4 to 5 vehicles that had come to that scene. they were marked in one way or another that they were ambulance or aid workers. so, the idea that indeed the shooter or the russians who fired the weapo