I just tagged the ones you marked.  However, before we take this to a more public review, I would like to hear why you think those images should be allowed to stay.  No point in wasting other editors time, if the images have absolutely no chance of being allowed to stay in the end.  Every image above said that it was taken from somewhere, and that's generally not allowed.  There are some specific exceptions, but I don't see them applying.  You should read the Copyright FAQ, specifically section 1.1 and 4.  If you took something from somewhere and modified it, it would count as a derivative work.  The copyright for the original still applies in that case, so it will not be allowed to remain here.

 As for using pictures created by your father, I think most people will accept if you claimed to have his permission (I think there is a more formal way to register the permission, but I wouldn't bother).  You should know, though, that the license tag you selected (public domain) allows anyone in the world to do anything they want with it.  Essentially, you're releasing the copyright.  That's good for Wikipedia, but if you think the picture is of great quality, you may wish to retain the copyright and instead license it with one of the GFDL licenses, which are still accepted on Wikipedia.  If this is something you want to do, I'll be happy to guide you through selecting an appropriate license for your needs.

 In short, it seems you are not entirely familiar with how copyrights work.  Even with a link back to the source, you can't just take the image and use it here.  There are some exceptions that can allow the use of non-free materials, such as fair use (section 5 in the FAQ), but then it would require re-tagging and a detailed fair use rationale.  It doesn't look like any of the remaining images can't conceivably be replaced by free alternatives, and none of them are absolutely essential to the articles they're used in.  Hence, you'll have a hard time getting the fair use rationale accepted.