I'd rather guess it's based on us not knowing 'bout anything which can exceed it.

From what I understand, most of the research regarding the Faster Than Light phenomenon is mainly supported by: Measurements of distant mass/waveforms, which probably affected by illusions (such as displacement); theories based on probably unnatural assumed environments; and theories relying on too many assumptions, due to phenomenons which are either too difficult to measure/define or considered too dangerous to recreate for defining actually accurate and precise enough data.
Beside: "Playing tricks on people's eyes" by exceeding the speed of light sound like quite the overkill. We don't need to go anywhere near the speed of light to trick our optical observation skills by speed alone. Our brain does a great job, filtering out assumed unnecessary details and making assumptions to fill our blind spots, for it to get easily tricked.