Sol 1795. Interesting ChemCam image

Eight Mastcam images of the ridge with the cross have now turned up on Sol 1795. However they are the degraded black and white images and they are not any better - if not worse - than the chemcam images.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01795/mcam/1795MR0092610270604194C00_DXXX.jpg

Here is the mission update for what Nasa have named the Vera Rubin ridge. They use the chemcam shot of the "cross" feature at the top of the page and mention the long range shots taken by the chemcam and yet fail to mention the feature. Not noteworthy I guess.
mars.nasa.gov/MSL/mission/mars-rover-curiosity-mission-updates/?mu=sol-1797-1799-scrutinizing-vera-rubin-ridge

This in my eyes is very bizzar. The "cross" feature deserves to be discussed and analyzed publicly. Asking NASA directly would probably not lead to an answer. Recently I sent a question by the contact formular on jpl on why many raw images get published in black and white although the thumbnails are in color. As expected the question has not been anwered until now. So what about informing Mr. Hoagland or the press about the "cross" feature ?

Clearly the mission team have noticed the "cross" as they now have at least two chemical images and eight further b/w images from the Mastcam - the eight b/w images they delayed posting.

I find it interesting they have given a mission report headed by a very obvious image of the "cross" but fail to mention it. If you remember the "femur bone" image from Sol 719 they made the effort to comment on that image within about a week with the dismissive headline "Bone up on Mars rock shapes" and then "no bones about it". mars.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/?ImageID=6538
That they bothered to note the "femur bone" says to me they were confident it was just a rock.

So I guess we must await the "sculpted by erosion" analysis once they have come up with a suitably corny headline for the "cross". The other possibility is that the feature really has left them scratching their heads and they have yet to work out how to respond. I think they have a problem as they have driven so far into this desert there is no turning back. Meaning if they give the slightest hint there is something artificial about this feature then what about all those other features enthusiasts like those of us here have been pointing out for the last few years. As they are in the habit of just ignoring or dismissing then it is difficult to change tactic without a change of management. The less certain Nasa are concerning this feature the more likely they will just stay silent and offer no more images. Like the "Crinoid" image taken by Opportunity they just won't mention it again.