I am aware of the definition of coincidence. Yet the two examples I provided do not make use of this definition. I agree that your example fails, but my two examples hold to demonstrate cases where objects move faster than c. Surely you must see this.
Oh I thought you were saying that the contact point of the wave hitting the shore was going faster than the speed of light, and that the bug's shadow was going faster than the speed of light.
And you're calling these two things objects.
But in fact, in the case of the bug, his shadow is not an object.
You might at least be able to say the light shining around the bug was an object, but that's not true either - it is an infinite number of light waves leaving a source and arriving at different destinations.
As the bug moves, light begins to shine in one area and stops shining in another area nearby -- but those were two beams of light, and two incidences that happened to coincide. But they were not the same object. A coincidence is not an object.
Same thing with the wave hitting the shore: No object is moving down the shore. The apparent contact point may be, but that is not an object.
The waves leaving the wave generator (whatever it was) are multiple paths of wave energy, traveling in different directions through different groups of water molecules, and arriving at different destinations.
When the wave hits the shore at point A and slightly later at point B, it is not an object moving, it is two incidences coinciding.
But nothing in your examples are moving faster than the speed of light.